-
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.
My personal guess is that it will start in 1453 because that's when CK II ends (savegame porting, anyone?) and probably ends just before or just after the napoleonic wars, maybe even extending a bit further but that's a big maybe.
Same here. I would prefer starting date no later than in ~1451\1453 to have opportunities to do something with Byzantium until they are completly defeated..
They should put the start date in 700BC, just to please all the now-disappointed Rome fans 
And the end date at 1913 to satisfy the disappointed Taft fans!They should put the start date in 700BC, just to please all the now-disappointed Rome fans
Whatever starting date is chosen, someone will argue it should be changed. After all, what do you want as the start point : the beginning of the hundred years war - very significant to England/France; the fall of Byzantium - a good marker, but then you'd have the work to do if you wanted someone to be able to restore it, with no guarantee any of it would ever be seen, especially with the historical focus; 1485 - the War of the Roses in England, not necessarily relevant to anyone outside of the British Isles though; the last of the big crusades - again, a good marker, but not one that is necessarily relevant to the heartland of Europe, and certainly not to the court of China or Japan.
Any start date, or indeed end date, can be dismissed as irrelevant, or as not as relevant, to the particular interests of a given group of players. It's going to be an interesting one to watch...
Any start date, or indeed end date, can be dismissed as irrelevant, or as not as relevant, to the particular interests of a given group of players. It's going to be an interesting one to watch...
I'd like it to be shorter and deeper. V2 felt right with detailed processes for a century. CK2 is about dynasty so it's OK to have several centuries. EU3 with expansions feels too long and not focused. In 1399 it's too modern and in 1800 it's too old-fashioned. Napoleonic era feels wrong. I'm intrigued by the new trade system. It looks a lot like Empire Total War but it's one of the things that was done right in this game - more of controlling trade routes, though I'm sure EU4 will give more peaceful and sane ways to operate them.
I'm also curious about colonization and province development. Even with Divine Wind colonies were primitive and not so useful for great powers mainly to how trade works. And provinces were too straightforward and bland, every province you've put money in is almost equally profitable. If this game will continue trend of increasing awesomeness started by V2 we'll see greatest game of all.
I'm also curious about colonization and province development. Even with Divine Wind colonies were primitive and not so useful for great powers mainly to how trade works. And provinces were too straightforward and bland, every province you've put money in is almost equally profitable. If this game will continue trend of increasing awesomeness started by V2 we'll see greatest game of all.
One thing I'll say, 1399 is waaay too early a start date. I always thought 1453 worked quite well, alternatively 1419 from the EU2 days.
I don't care too much about Byzantion, if someone wants to play them they can mod in an alternate scenario (and an alternate scenario will be modded)
I don't care too much about Byzantion, if someone wants to play them they can mod in an alternate scenario (and an alternate scenario will be modded)
I think that sane and peacefule are two keywords that EU4 should use more often than EU3. In EU3 there are hardly any problems that can't be solved by wars and war's usually the best way to do those thing. Want a personal union? Force one with a war. Want to trade in a CoT? Conquer it. Want colonies? Steal them in a war.
Peaceful gameplay is too plain and boring in EU3. EU4 is a great chance to change that.
This is a good post. I agree. I really love developing my country. Infrastructure, trade, agriculture, anything. I love the CIV games simply because of how much you can improve and all the buildings. EU3 is extremely focused on war.
Just curious: why 1804? Why cease when France, under Napoleon, is beginning to emerge as the dominant European land-based power?
For me, personally, it would be more logical to set the end date perhaps around 1822, a year after the death of Napoleon. It would still intertwine with Vikki 2's opening bookmarked date of 1836 quite well, in my opinion.
Regardless of start and end dates, EU IV looks awesome!
EDIT: Nevermind, dude. I realize now: March of the Eagles. Sorry. :laugh:
Last edited:
Since the other Paradox Development Studio development is a Napoleon game that starts in 1805, perhaps EU4 will end before then.
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?674-March-of-the-Eagles
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?674-March-of-the-Eagles
Then I demand that Ayyubid Empire be included. Go back to before the Mamelukes.
Well I'd like to see Byzantium included, just so it can be revived as the ultimate test.
It's still a long way to go and things may change but as of now Byzantophiles need not to worry and someone here already guessed the right start. Which one I will of course not say...