What timeline will it be?

[SerialCereal]

The problem with your argument is that 1444-1789 is not a single era. EU4 combines at least four different eras into one playable mega-campaign. If you want the game to be better tailored to suit the mechanics of the renaisance, reformation, absolutism and enlightenment, then Paradox has to divide EU4 into four new games instead of one!

It has already been explained to you that it is impossible to simulate both the diplomatic and militaristic interactions of Napoleonic era states. It just isn't doable. Why do you still go on about it?

If I am going to be perfectly honest, then I would like a much shorter game with a much better representation of the time. For example a game between the start of the reformation and the end of the thirty years war, including a whole load of detail would be a fantastic insta-buy for me. It is for reasons like this that I am far more hyped for the release of MoE and prefer games such as Darkest Hour and Victoria 2.

 

[SerialCereal]

So what does 1444 mean in comparison with 1399?

- Stronger Burgundy, Ottoman Empire and Venice?
- Aragon and Castille in PU?
- Aragon has Naples
- Algiers, Tunis and parts of Libya under Hafsid rule?
- ???

Golden Horde will have a much smaller impact on game as will Timurids. The latter will provide a significant boost to the Ottoman Empire.

 

[takedown47]

It has already been explained to you that it is impossible to simulate both the diplomatic and militaristic interactions of Napoleonic era states. It just isn't doable. Why do you still go on about it?

If I am going to be perfectly honest, then I would like a much shorter game with a much better representation of the time. For example a game between the start of the reformation and the end of the thirty years war, including a whole load of detail would be a fantastic insta-buy for me. It is for reasons like this that I am far more hyped for the release of MoE and prefer games such as Darkest Hour and Victoria 2.

it would be cool to make a 19th century era mod using EU4. say 100-150 year campaign from the dawn of the industrial revolution to about 1920. more focused on specific mechanics like revolution, factories, scramble for africa, worker's revolts etc.

 

[flame7926]

it would be cool to make a 19th century era mod using EU4. say 100-150 year campaign from the dawn of the industrial revolution to about 1920. more focused on specific mechanics like revolution, factories, scramble for africa, worker's revolts etc.

Why not just play Victoria 2, a game designed for that period?

 

[Garak]

it would be cool to make a 19th century era mod using EU4. say 100-150 year campaign from the dawn of the industrial revolution to about 1920. more focused on specific mechanics like revolution, factories, scramble for africa, worker's revolts etc.

As flame pointed out, Victoria 2 is pretty much exactly what you're describing.

So what does 1444 mean in comparison with 1399?

- Stronger Burgundy, Ottoman Empire and Venice?
- Aragon and Castille in PU?
- Aragon has Naples
- Algiers, Tunis and parts of Libya under Hafsid rule?
- ???

You could always fire up EU3 and start in 1444 to get an idea.

 

[Alerias]

Im expecting this to get tweaked for balance, but another major thing is that Portugal has 6 active explorers in Nov 1444... enough to map the western American seaboard and reach India in the hands of a skilled player.

Good point regarding the weaker hordes. Actually starting in 1448 or so just about wipes out the Timurids. But Moscow will have an easier early game for sure now. Plenty of small Muslim states all around ripe for the picking.

 

[Merrick Chance']

Frederick III has just been elected, meaning less of a chance at a Bohemian Emperor4ever scenario. Which I like, in fact Bohemia should be weakened to the degree that it can be inherited over the course of the game (like Burgundy) by the Emperor--their government simply wasn't build to last.

 

[Alerias]

Frederick III has just been elected, meaning less of a chance at a Bohemian Emperor4ever scenario. Which I like, in fact Bohemia should be weakened to the degree that it can be inherited over the course of the game (like Burgundy) by the Emperor--their government simply wasn't build to last.

Also Hungary is in a PU with Austria from game start. Clearly this is good for Austria all around...

 

[Merrick Chance']

Also Hungary is in a PU with Austria from game start. Clearly this is good for Austria all around...

Which is good for balance: without a strong Emperor I find that Europe falls to hell pretty quickly, but a Bohemian Emperor finds it all too easy at expanding into Poland/beyond, becoming this crazy Russia style power.

 

[ANO1453]

So what does 1444 mean in comparison with 1399?

- Stronger Burgundy, Ottoman Empire and Venice?
- Aragon and Castille in PU?
- Aragon has Naples
- Algiers, Tunis and parts of Libya under Hafsid rule?
- ???

Colonisation already in the hands of Portugal and Castille. Specially Portugal, a few more years, and the advancement lower the African coast would be pretty obvious.

 

[nett40]

But those are pretty much different sections of society. You sorta forgot colonization and trade too. The revolutionary era, and Napoleon, and well as any industrialization at all, doesn't fit into the game.

So, I assume that you dislike EU3-DW since it has both the revolutionary era and Napoleon era in it.

It has already been explained to you that it is impossible to simulate both the diplomatic and militaristic interactions of Napoleonic era states. It just isn't doable. Why do you still go on about it?

Nonsense, it has already been done nicely and simple in Europa Univeralis III Divine Wind. All I'm saying is that by cutting more than 100 years from EU3-DW's timeline, EU4 looses some of its appeal to me.

If I am going to be perfectly honest, then I would like a much shorter game with a much better representation of the time. For example a game between the start of the reformation and the end of the thirty years war, including a whole load of detail would be a fantastic insta-buy for me. It is for reasons like this that I am far more hyped for the release of MoE and prefer games such as Darkest Hour and Victoria 2.

Then maybe EU3-DW isn't your thing?

 

[nett40]

The reason I keep ranting is that I want EU4 to be based upon EU3-DW, because I want to be able to play mega campaigns (1399-1821). The longer the merrier, actually.

EU4 can never hope to be a perfect simulation of more than 300 years of human history and society. However, it can be a good simple simulation of more than 400 years of history, if it stays true to its simple origins (EU1, EU2 and EU3).

If I want to dive deeper into a specific timeperiod, I can always choose to play games like "Hearts of Iron", "Darkest Hour", "A House Divided" or soon "March Of The Eagles".

You can have both types of games, don't deny yourself that option...

 

[PiriReis]

The reason I keep ranting is that I want EU4 to be based upon EU3-DW, because I want to be able to play mega campaigns (1399-1821). The longer the merrier, actually.

EU4 can never hope to be a perfect simulation of more than 300 years of human history and society. However, it can be a good simple simulation of more than 400 years of history, if it stays true to its simple origins (EU1, EU2 and EU3).

Didn't the vanilla EU3 start originally with 1453?

 

[nett40]

Didn't the vanilla EU3 start originally with 1453?

Yes, and vanilla EU2 started in 1492. But the game expansions always expanded the timelines to last until 1821, simply because fans and modders wanted to be able to play for a longer time.

The final versions of EU1, EU2 and EU3 all have long timelines...

 

[hitchens]

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)

It should be optional. Personally I think the sooner the better. For some reason, when I reach 1550'ish I always get the feeling that the game is over

 

[Jokurr]

It should be optional. Personally I think the sooner the better. For some reason, when I reach 1550'ish I always get the feeling that the game is over

All the more reason to start later imo. The enlightenment era is one of my favourites in history, I hope they make the late game worth playing.

 

[Alerias]

All the more reason to start later imo. The enlightenment era is one of my favourites in history, I hope they make the late game worth playing.

+1

So many people play only early parts of the timelines that late games get forgotten in Paradox games. The enlightenment wasnt living to its potential in Eu3. In Ck2, the late game is plagued with stuff like crazy and unreasonable attrition (too lenient early, way too hardass late game) and such.

I personally like starting around 1550-1650, so that always bugged me a bit

 

[flame7926]

So, I assume that you dislike EU3-DW since it has both the revolutionary era and Napoleon era in it.



Nonsense, it has already been done nicely and simple in Europa Univeralis III Divine Wind. All I'm saying is that by cutting more than 100 years from EU3-DW's timeline, EU4 looses some of its appeal to me.



Then maybe EU3-DW isn't your thing?

I wish they hadn't expanded the timeline, it was unnecessary. The features don't fit. You can just mod it longer if you want. But I don't want them having to try to make the period more realistic, believable, for a few fans who can just change a file, since they don't seem to care how good the game models the period anyway.

 

[Grubnessul]

I do hope they change the French set up a bit as Burgundy is even stronger in 1444. *shakes fist at burgundy*

 

[Merrick Chance']

In the 6 years I've played EU3, I've completed the game 4 times. I've never seen a Revolution that wasn't triggered by me. And I've never seen a game started after 1700 make sense at all.