What timeline will it be?

[1alexey]

1399. The GH is still alive and reasonably kicking, Europe can still fight off the Turks, the Blobs are not formed yet, and the playing field is more level.

I want to see my Byzantium. And am I the only one that never ever saw Byzantium live? Either ottomans take them or Venice :/

No, in DW the AI Byzantium can survive and even restore some teritories, if not almost all the empire.

Ottomans get attacked by Timurids, the European Crusaders, and all that, which leads to Bysantium having pretty fair chances to recover if Ottomans collaps.

 

[nett40]

I think 1453 would be a good starting date, for four reasons:

1. The Ottoman Empire has extinguished the last flame of antiquity (Fall of the East Roman Empire).
2. Denmark and Sweden would be at eachothers throats from the beginning and the restoration of the Kalmar Union would only be a very loose personal union.
3. France and England would be fighting the last part of the looong "Hundred Years War".
4. Poland and Lithuania should be united in Poland-Lithuania and this union would be one of the strongest powers of Eastern Europe.

I think the best end date would be 31. December 1870, because the unification of Germany and Italy marks the beginning of the end for the total domination of the world by the old European powers (Europa Universalis). More importantly, around this time USA and Japan would no longer simply dance to the pipe of the European powers.

An updated EU game-engine should be able to handle such a long timeline (1453-1870), because many historic events (such as the Crimean War and The US-Mexican Wars) could be portrayed better in an Europa Universalis-game. Simply introduce a republic and monarchy flag for all countries to add flavor to the game.

If you want to be true to the title "Europa Universalis" you could also chose 1492 as the starting date, because thats when European exploration and global domination truly began. If you choose 1492 then you would also have a strong Ottoman Empire, France, Austria and Spain form the beginning.

 

[ANO1453]

The Portuguese Age of Discovery started in 1415 with the conquest of Ceuta. I'd like to be able to play through that initial period, with early colonisation of Azores, Madeira, Canaries rather than cutting straight into 1492. An earlier start date means so much more possibilities.

 

[Sam L]

If you want to be true to the title "Europa Universalis" you could also chose 1492 as the starting date, because thats when European exploration and global domination truly began. If you choose 1492 then you would also have a strong Ottoman Empire, France, Austria and Spain form the beginning.

Ideally what should happen is a 1492 start and CKII should expand to 1492.

 

[Jia Xu]

If you want to be true to the title "Europa Universalis" you could also chose 1492 as the starting date, because thats when European exploration and global domination truly began. If you choose 1492 then you would also have a strong Ottoman Empire, France, Austria and Spain form the beginning.

This makes a 1492 less attractive to me, to be quite honest. If I wanted a game where all of the world's powers are already established, then I would just start a game of Victoria II. The thing I really liked about EU3's 1399 start date is that while there was a lot of fairly powerful states at the start, none of them were superpowers and the game could develop in any direction.

 

[systemlvl]

I'm hoping for 1453 or 1492, so that we can have a early-modern game with moderately sized states getting bigger and fighting each other rather than one where everything is still chaotic and medieval which the game does not have capabilities to represent properly anyway.

 

[PiriReis]

I am hoping for a start at 1453 the Conquest of Constantinople and end in 1789 the French Revolution.

This is the best period that Europa Universalis represents.

Edit:
All you Byzantophiles and Napoleanophiles have CK2 and March of the Eagles.

 

[1alexey]

Why do some people that want later start, not just use the the later bookbark and play from their favourite date, and let the ones who enjoy earlier starts, have them?

 

[PiriReis]

Dont know about the others but IMO dont want see devs waisting time and resources on those timeframes that do not represent Europa Universalis or to an empire that was already "dead" before 1453, instead they should spend more time into developing more events unique to countries and years, as well as unique national ideas, and even event chains.

 

[1alexey]

Dont know about the others but IMO dont want see devs waisting time and resources on those timeframes that do not represent Europa Universalis or to an empire that was already "dead" before 1453, instead they should spend more time into developing more events unique to countries and years, as well as unique national ideas, and even event chains.

How is the development time differs? They already have the 1399 start in EU3, so most of the leg work(reserching) is already done.

 

[Captain Frakas]

I think 1453 would be a good starting date, for four reasons:

1. The Ottoman Empire has extinguished the last flame of antiquity (Fall of the East Roman Empire).
2. Denmark and Sweden would be at eachothers throats from the beginning and the restoration of the Kalmar Union would only be a very loose personal union.
3. France and England would be fighting the last part of the looong "Hundred Years War".
4. Poland and Lithuania should be united in Poland-Lithuania and this union would be one of the strongest powers of Eastern Europe.

I think the best starting date is 1492 and the earliest "good" starting date is the 18th of July,1453, after the last battle of the Hundred Years War.

I think the best end date would be 31. December 1870

Europa Universalis is unable to represent in an acceptable meaner anything past 1792 (so ending the 1st of January is good).

It's already difficult for EU to spawn from the Renaissance and the Wars of Religions to the enlightenment.

 

[vanin]

If the "time window" from start to end ends up smaller than previously, is there anything that can be done to make the game run slower in the sense that more happens in less time, therefore extending a game's life as the player has to divert his attention to more things which takes more time? 1492 to 1792 sounds reasonable considering the way EU3 handles the late middle ages and revolutions, and a perfect 300 years has a nice ring to it.

I'd much rather Paradox focus on the things that make EU great, which is trade, colonization and renaissance warfare (among many, many other things) rather than try to be a jack of all trades with middle ages and revolutionary wars ala Napoleon. That can be added with DLC to accomodate if need be.

Not that I'd mind an early start date, I like the Eastern Romans alot and I'd be sad to see them go: But nothing some mods out a week after launch won't fix.

 

[Evie HJ]

Why do some people that want later start, not just use the the later bookbark and play from their favourite date, and let the ones who enjoy earlier starts, have them?

Because we'd like game features to be designed focused on the parts of the game we play (and which we feel should be central to the game), not the parts of the game we don't play that we feel are not relevant to the game.

Compare the amount of attention given to pre-1600 stuff and post-1600 stuff in EU3: the Empire, the building system (pretty much all pre-l5 building are built by 1600), etc, are all largely focused on pre-1600, while post-1600 stuff (Revolutions, Colonial Independence) are still practically in the same state as they were in EU III vanilla or Napoleon's Ambition, five years ago. Even Colonization is still a very bland, flavorless system that has been largely untouched since In nomine. Meanwhile the Empire, the Papacy, etc (early game features) keep getting more and more depth.

It's not very interesting to start a game in with 50 or 100 years of actual expanded game content then 200+ years of vanilla content.

 

[ANO1453]

Some are forgetting that a 1453 start already cuts out a big deal of the Atlantic exploration of Africa and basically assures Portugal and Spain the ownership of Azores, Madeira and The Canarias. Maybe one ends up with a more historical colonisation, I don't know, but it gives the rest of the countries much decreased possibilities.

 

[Hootieleece]

I'm hoping for 1453 to 1836. So it fit's snugly between CKII and Vicky2.For the Byzantine Enthusiasts out there allow a Decision to form it if you are greek orthodox and own enough provinces.(including Thrace)

 

[nett40]

I'm hoping for 1453 to 1836. So it fit's snugly between CKII and Vicky2.For the Byzantine Enthusiasts out there allow a Decision to form it if you are greek orthodox and own enough provinces.(including Thrace)

I think the Timeline should go on to at least 1821 as in EU3 Divine Wind. However, I would like for it to go on untill 1836 and I would simply love it, if EU4 went on untill 1870. I prefer a later enddate to an earlier startdate...

The reason I want a late enddate is to avoid a lot of expansions to get Napoleon in later, like Paradox did with EU1, EU2 and EU3. Let's skip those expansions and make a reasonable timeline in the first release, then the expansions can focus on extending the franchise into new territory later on with later enddates (1836 or 1870) and focus more on improving Asian, African, Middle Eastern and Native American cultures.

 

[1alexey]

Because we'd like game features to be designed focused on the parts of the game we play (and which we feel should be central to the game), not the parts of the game we don't play that we feel are not relevant to the game.

Compare the amount of attention given to pre-1600 stuff and post-1600 stuff in EU3: the Empire, the building system (pretty much all pre-l5 building are built by 1600), etc, are all largely focused on pre-1600, while post-1600 stuff (Revolutions, Colonial Independence) are still practically in the same state as they were in EU III vanilla or Napoleon's Ambition, five years ago. Even Colonization is still a very bland, flavorless system that has been largely untouched since In nomine. Meanwhile the Empire, the Papacy, etc (early game features) keep getting more and more depth.

It's not very interesting to start a game in with 50 or 100 years of actual expanded game content then 200+ years of vanilla content.

How does late game changes from starting 50 years earlier?

 

[nett40]

Europa Universalis is unable to represent in an acceptable meaner anything past 1792 (so ending the 1st of January is good).

It's already difficult for EU to spawn from the Renaissance and the Wars of Religions to the enlightenment.

Then Paradox simply have to make Europa Universalis IV better at representing the era past 1792 in an acceptabel manner. Afterall, if the Napoleonic era isn't included in the first edition it will be the focus of one of the EU4 expansions...

 

[Dragassa]

I hope the Byzantines are in the game. It's like playing Granada and hope they will survive Castille
1419-1792 were the dates for one of the older EU games and that would be fine with me.
To those who say "mods" can put the ERE in, I say not all of us play mods.
I also hope that those who insist on 1453 as the starting date, are not the same ones who wanted the Byzantines
nerfed in CK2 not too long ago in that forum.
The EU series and CK are to me completely different style of games to play, and playing as the Byzantines in CK2 does not feel the same as playing them in EU.
I play on normal DW and the Byzantine AI survives as a 2-3 province minor in about a third of my games.

 

[Evie HJ]

1alexey:

Most people play the game from the default date (which is, usually, the earliest date)
Many people don't play the game the full duration - they stop once they reach their game goal, or whatnot.
Therefore, people most often play in the earlier stages of the game.

Therefore, Paradox, since they want to address the part of the game people most often play, build their features around that.

If you start later, you get less/no use of those features, and no new features to replace them.