Hopefully that's a 1399 start. I really don't think 1399 is too early a start date, tbh - I just think there needs to be more to do in the opening hundred years or so, since most of that time is spent waiting around til the techs start to bite.
-
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.
Disagree, if we think of the big events of the period (reformation, discovery and colonization of americas, Conquest of Aztecs/Incas, explosive growth of Ottoman Empire, East Indian Trade...) it all happened from ~1500-1700. I like the idea of waiting 40-50 years for the big events to get going (1453 start date), but waiting a 90-100 years (well over a quarter to a third of the game), before the main action would not be optimal.
If you look at Vicky 2, big events start happening quite quickly after 1836 (IE by the 1840s you're getting the buildup towards the liberal revolution of 1848).
Also, 1399-1453 is better covered by CK2 anyway. That period was far more dominated by feudal type politics compared to 1453-
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...
So it's confirmed: The start date is in 700 BC! YES!
It's really too early. Consider the Hussites in Bohemia for example. Bohemia in 1399 EU3 is extremely stable, in history things were looking bad for them just a few years later, whereas they almost always survive and stay stable for a very long time in EU3 because it has no determinism whatsoever and the hussites are only mentioned as heretic rebels who also can appear anywhere.
I cannot comprehend why you would choose that date. Feudalism continued for about another 300 years after 1453.
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...
Points @ the above
Oh Captain my Captain, you tease!
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...
Might be 1419, someone mentioned that before. Would make sense as well, what with the Hussite wars just starting out.
Personally I'd rather see them extend the end date to after the Nepoleonic Wars rather than focus on the beginnings of the 15th century. With March of the Eagles coming who knows if that will happen, but one can hope.
I will second that. The 1399 start is more unstable and interesting.
The initial 20-30 or so years are not as interesting gameplay wise, but the initial diplomatic setup and wars and events lay foundation for much more diverse and interesting game!
Lets hope we will get 1400 as start, at least in expansion.
I'd like to see 1492 (discovery of the New World) to 1774 (start of the American Revolution). Then they could split Crusader Kings into two games, one early medieval and one late medieval.
I think 1453 is the best start date. A real Byzantophile will recreate Byzantium from Athens or the other Greek states
I think 1453 is the best start date. A real Byzantophile will recreate Byzantium from Athens or the other Greek states
A real Byzantophile plays Trebizond.
A Byzantophobe like myself plays AC:Revelations...
I think you solve that by tweaking AI or events. Give Castille and Aragon events which point them at each other, or make the AI for Castille such that it really desires some of the core Aragon provinces. Ditto the UK - you see it early because England's Scotland/Ireland missions put them in a war there right away half the time.
Agree.
IMO, in DLC, at best.
But Napoleonic wars (Including Patriotic War of 1812) just need to be included.
