MEIOU had it right with a start date of 1356 at the order of the golden bull in the HRE. 1356 -1856 is a good timeline.
-
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.
1856? Why 1856? That's well outside the thematic timeframe of the series, and past EU games have not even remotely had the mechanics to depict the 19th century at all. Besides, we have the Victoria series for that.
It shouldn't be that hard to depict the 19th century. Paradox would have to add a few new techs (such as railroads), new sprites and new scenarios. Politics, military and trade should be kept simple (like it is). You don't need more than three branches for the armies (Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery) and you don't need more than four different ship types (big ships, light ships, galleys and transports).
I don't think that it should be impossible to make a new game that depicts parts of the 19th century, just because Victoria II also depicts parts of that timeline.
Btw. if that were the case you shouldn't have a Darkest Hour game (1914-1946) nor a Sengoku game, because both those game depicts parts of timelines allready depicted in other paradox games (HoI3, Vic2, CK2 and EU3).
Because the main feature of the 19th century was industrialization which this game doesn't model.
The industrial revolution didn't really take of in most developed countries untill late in the 19th century. This early industrialization could be depicted in various ways. Paradox could add "large factory upgrades" to the refinery, wharf, weapons and textile manufactories once you get the "industrialization" idea! Or once you reach a certain tech level. You could also add another layer of to trade and production buildings (ie. railroad).
Late industrialization (post 1870) will not be easy to integrate into an EU-game and is better portrayed in a Victoria-game. In most countries real political parties didn't even exist for the better part of the 19th century. Parliaments where primarily made up of factions liberals, whigs, monarchists etc.
It makes sense that it would start in 14th century. In my opinion, the best dates would be from 1453 to 1789. From the start of the medieval era to the start of the early modern era
The first industrial revolution, nationalism, sphere influencing, all aren't really modeled in EU. Political movements, and political revolts were a big part. Inheritance, Personal Unions, and pretty much most of the stuff in EU don't fit in the period of 1790 on.
Sweden-Norway was a Personal Union from 1814-1905. Prussia inherited many duchies and minor principalities during the 19th century.
Austria-Hungary another personal union came into being after a revolt following Austria's defeat in the Austro-Prussian War 1866. Furthermore, simple nationalism is already integrated into EU3, with the UNION countries (France, Germany, Great Britain, Scandinavia, Russia, Spain and Italy).
I think the industrial, political and economical complexity of the late 19th century should be kept in Vic2. However, I also think that the first half of the 19th century (up to 1836 or 1870) has to be modelled into the next EU game.
The early 19th century is the growth of the Victorian British empire, and Victoria II ain't called that for nothing...
1800-1835 isn't depicted in Victoria II (1836-1936)!
Btw. Victoria ruled Britain from 1836 to 1901. Meaning that the Vic2-game has expanded out of the Victorian era and well into the New Imperialism era (1880-1914) and the World Wars era (1914-1945). Maybe EU4 could expand into other eras as well?
Last edited:
Yes, but there aren't any WWI or interwar games, so Vicky isn't expanding into ground better covered by other games. Extending EUIV into 1870, on the other hand, would take over nearly half of Victoria II's timeline. Also, since we are having a Napoleonic era game (march of the Eagles or whatever) extending EUIV to 1870 would completely override that entire game.
IMO EU4 should be shrunk back to 1796, and start at 1420 or so. That means that it covers the early modern period, the core part of the game, without being diluted with medieval mechanics or having effort wasted on a late game which nobody ever plays.
My preferred start date: 18th July 1453. In vanilla EU3, this is when the Hundred Years war is over. If you go from the Fall of Constantinople, France will start invading and taking chunks out of england. 1444 with the Battle of Varna should model the decrepid and pretty much dead state of Byzantium and the Crusader movement, but still leaves space for the Hundred Years War to go haywire.
My preferred end date: 1789 or 1804. The game currently does a poor job of the revolution. You currently need all your slider in extremely specific positions and then a rebel group spawns and changes your country, giving you a lot of bonuses and a lot of enemies. I really believe March of the Eagles should be left to do this time period, with Paradox maybe adding elements of the political system that might be in the game in an expansion, after it's been fine tuned and the like.
Why 1870 would be bad
Think of what you do in Vicky 2 for the first 40 years. You try your hardest to industrialise, try to form bigger nations, try to control the liberal revolutions and try to prepare your country for civilisation. Extending a game to this period and giving it mechanics that will be used to 34 years of gameplay, by only a few, powerful nations, would be a waste of resources.
My preferred end date: 1789 or 1804. The game currently does a poor job of the revolution. You currently need all your slider in extremely specific positions and then a rebel group spawns and changes your country, giving you a lot of bonuses and a lot of enemies. I really believe March of the Eagles should be left to do this time period, with Paradox maybe adding elements of the political system that might be in the game in an expansion, after it's been fine tuned and the like.
Why 1870 would be bad
Think of what you do in Vicky 2 for the first 40 years. You try your hardest to industrialise, try to form bigger nations, try to control the liberal revolutions and try to prepare your country for civilisation. Extending a game to this period and giving it mechanics that will be used to 34 years of gameplay, by only a few, powerful nations, would be a waste of resources.
DARKEST HOUR is a HoI-game about the First World War!
March of the Eagles is another kind of game, focusing on a short specific time period, like Hearts of Iron's focus is on World War II.
Europa Universalis is a game thats spans many eras and goes on for a long time, if you start in 1399, 1419, 1453 or 1492 then you most certainly won't run into an historical Napoleon around 1800 in EU4. Just like you never gets a historical World War 1 in Vic2.
Europa Universalis is the original grand strategy game from Paradox, while most other Paradox games are focussed on short specific time periods.
Last edited:
Norway was forced into that Personal Union, it wasn't the result of inheritance. They didn't inherit, like with their King being next in line, any country that is big enough to be modelled, they invaded and annexed them. Austria inherited Hungary, then gave Hungarians more say in the government. It doesn't have enough nationalism, it doesn't even represent minority cultures. Just because a country is formable doesn't represent anything behind it. I would be somewhat fine with up to 1836 though I think 1821 would be better.
But isn't that what you do in EU3 as well? try to grow your economy (industrialize), try to form a bigger nation, try to limit the number of rebels while you prepare your country for global domination.
If you extend the timeline to 1870, you could add scenarios about the US-Mexican wars, the Crimean War and the South American Wars of Liberation among others... Scenarios that are not dealt with in Victoria 2, because of the complexities with that games' pop-system and economics.
While I don't have any strong feelings regarding the starting date, I'd like to see the game finish with the "French" revolution - as a random event which can occur with increasing probability in any major country (so that it may have continent-wide effects) where the conditions are right (e. g. low stability, a government averse to reform, Enlightenment ideas, perhaps a financial crisis).
Even though I'm a Byzantophile 1st class and the incarnation of Napoleon I, I'd say 1453-1789 is the best time frame. It leaves the Ottomans in good shape and removes my archnemesis: Burgundy. For the end date: the French Revolution was handled worse than a virgin vegan would handle a butchery full of stallions in EU3 so please leave it out.
Maybe then there should be some Victoria II scenarios then, rather than just tacking them on to the end of a game which isn't really about that era in the first place? Extending EUIV to 1870 would be like adding a racing mode to Crysis: sure, racing is fun in other games, but that's not what Crysis is about. It messes up the narrative and displeases two audience at the same time. Half the customers are disappointed that so much effort has gone into something that EUIV isn't really about (at the expense of the rest of the game) and the other half are disappointed that the end game features aren't nearly as good and accurate as they should be.
The arguments against extending the EU timeline are similar to the arguments against devoting large amounts of resources to RotW countries. Although EU runs for quite a long time, it isn't a sandbox like Civ intended to portray all situations, eras and countries equally. It has a specific subject, a specific narrative to tell.
But why make 1789 the enddate, you don't have to play beyond 1789 or 1804 if you don't like to. However, if you give the game a late enddate then you get time to play your country for A LONG TIME and you don't have to convert the game. I like the simplicity of EU-games, but I also like the long time span and the many possible scenarios...
There is completely no way to model the the era after 1789. You may as well just leave it out.