Currently, EU4 does not support other start dates than 1444, with it's later bookmarks being unbalanced or outright broken. I can see why this is - with the game originally supporting such a huge number of start dates, devs have bitten of more than they could chew. However, I believe the current start date of 1444 is unsatisfactory compromise between two ideas of what an EU game should be - a grand strategy about the Early Modern period or a grand strategy about the transition from the Late Medieval period to Early Modern period. Johan has previously mentioned that the chance of making a game with multiple start dates is next to none, however I believe he should reconsider - CK3 devs have shown ability to support multiple start date by focusing on just 2 (867 and 1066) and I believe EU5 should go the same way.
Why 1356 is better than 1444 for a Late Medieval to Early Modern game.
The 1356 offer much better potential for varied alternate history. Byzantines' days are not yet numbered, England winning the 100 Years War is still very much in the cards, Golden Horde is still a major player and in China the Yuan dynasty still rules (barely). At the 1444 start date, things like Byzantines pulling a Hail Mary or England winning the 100 Years War are so incredibly unlikely as to be effectively possible only for the player, not the AI. I think that's a wasted opportunity - imagine playing a game where the AI saves the Byzantines and the English AI resurrect the Angevin Empire - completely different game balance! This also gives the game opportunity to put off discovery of the Americas or the Portuguese circumnavigation of Africa (since there is no reason to avoid Ottomans while trading with Asia) further changing the game balance and providing for more varied results.
Why 1492 is better than 1444 for an Early Modern game.
On the complete opposite side of the spectrum there is the 1492 start date (my preferred scenario). This gives us a better, more balanced game that focuses entirely on the Early Modern period. Byzantine Empire and all of it's remnant states have been eaten by the Ottomans, 100 Years War has been resolved in favor France, Burgundy has been split between France and Austria and Great Powers of the Early Modern period have mostly consolidated their home turfs and are primed and ready for the colonial race in the west and Ottomans vs. everyone else survival horror experience in the east.
And yes, all of this can happen after starting in 1444. It's even the likely scenario. But what does the year 1444 offer to the player who does not want to go rummaging through the dustbin of history for the Byzantine and Angevin empires so they can play a nationalist Weekend at Bernie's with their corpses? Nothing. Nothing except 50 extra years of waiting. 50 extra years of waiting for the colonization to start. 50 extra years of waiting for the Reformation to start. And that's a 50 extra years in which the player can snowball, pulling back the effective end date where it's still fun to play the game.
There is an easy way for Paradox to verify whether this is a viable strategy - please, fix up the 1492 start date in EU4, remove all of the bookmarks you don't plan on maintaining and advertise this as an alternate way to play the game. I think especially the MP players would be happy to see this, since the 1492 start date is so much better balanced between the Great Powers than 1444.
Why 1356 is better than 1444 for a Late Medieval to Early Modern game.
The 1356 offer much better potential for varied alternate history. Byzantines' days are not yet numbered, England winning the 100 Years War is still very much in the cards, Golden Horde is still a major player and in China the Yuan dynasty still rules (barely). At the 1444 start date, things like Byzantines pulling a Hail Mary or England winning the 100 Years War are so incredibly unlikely as to be effectively possible only for the player, not the AI. I think that's a wasted opportunity - imagine playing a game where the AI saves the Byzantines and the English AI resurrect the Angevin Empire - completely different game balance! This also gives the game opportunity to put off discovery of the Americas or the Portuguese circumnavigation of Africa (since there is no reason to avoid Ottomans while trading with Asia) further changing the game balance and providing for more varied results.
Why 1492 is better than 1444 for an Early Modern game.
On the complete opposite side of the spectrum there is the 1492 start date (my preferred scenario). This gives us a better, more balanced game that focuses entirely on the Early Modern period. Byzantine Empire and all of it's remnant states have been eaten by the Ottomans, 100 Years War has been resolved in favor France, Burgundy has been split between France and Austria and Great Powers of the Early Modern period have mostly consolidated their home turfs and are primed and ready for the colonial race in the west and Ottomans vs. everyone else survival horror experience in the east.
And yes, all of this can happen after starting in 1444. It's even the likely scenario. But what does the year 1444 offer to the player who does not want to go rummaging through the dustbin of history for the Byzantine and Angevin empires so they can play a nationalist Weekend at Bernie's with their corpses? Nothing. Nothing except 50 extra years of waiting. 50 extra years of waiting for the colonization to start. 50 extra years of waiting for the Reformation to start. And that's a 50 extra years in which the player can snowball, pulling back the effective end date where it's still fun to play the game.
There is an easy way for Paradox to verify whether this is a viable strategy - please, fix up the 1492 start date in EU4, remove all of the bookmarks you don't plan on maintaining and advertise this as an alternate way to play the game. I think especially the MP players would be happy to see this, since the 1492 start date is so much better balanced between the Great Powers than 1444.
Last edited:
- 45
- 35
- 14
- 2
- 1
- 1
.png){kind=avatar}
