EU5 should have two start dates - 1356 and 1492.

[Blindbohemian]

To respond to you and previous statements, whilst you're offering a more intellectual view of things, to the vast majority of players EU4 is just a map painter game.

I think you’re right. But:

A) I can only advocate for and discuss the kind of game that I want, and that is the reason I got into EU all those years ago. And,

B) What matters, ultimately, isn’t what I think or what the majority of players think EU is, but what Paradox and specifically (probably) Johan think EU is. And judging by their language around EU from dev diary 0 onward (not to mention previous games), I think they tend to see it as more than a map painter.

So hey, I can hold out hope!

 

[Travis_Bickle]

I think you’re right. But:

A) I can only advocate for and discuss the kind of game that I want, and that is the reason I got into EU all those years ago. And,

B) What matters, ultimately, isn’t what I think or what the majority of players think EU is, but what Paradox and specifically (probably) Johan think EU is. And judging by their language around EU from dev diary 0 onward (not to mention previous games), I think they tend to see it as more than a map painter.

So hey, I can hold out hope!

I think they tried to gear the game towards more dev cost stuff a couple of patches back, but I don't think it got anywhere near as much hype as when they ended up overpowering mission trees.

I tried playing Korea last night. Sure, it's decent to be able to dev for nothing, have early institutions, dev up the poor provinces so they don't revolt...but it's way more fun to pick neighbouring Jianzhou and go mass conquest from day 1.

I agree with your sentiments largely that it'd be nice for the game to be more historical but I just think it's ultimately a map painter game and will stay that way.

Just my own experiences

 

[Abnormalmind]

Do you have a crystal ball or some sort of time machine to sit here and write knowing EU5's "spirit," game mechanics, and overall design? Paradox has been tight lipped about its development. And with all the posts made in this thread, you haven't offered a single opinion about a start date. I suggest that instead of complaining about everyone else's posts, perhaps you might want to consider actually suggesting a start date and providing a rationale for your amazing suggestion.

In addition, I'm the third person in this thread to support a 1356 start date (OP and Lord Lambert). I supplemented their reasons with additional interesting historic reasons.

@grom001

It's truly a shame, almost a pity, that EU5's start date is set in 1337. I can only imagine the agony it must be causing you, especially considering it seems to include many features from M&T3 and EU3. Perhaps you could head over to the TT forum and suggest why 1337 is a terrible choice for a start date? Best of luck!

 

[EarlKonrad]

1337 is a terrible choice for a start date?

At least everyone who kept complaining that colonization was too fast will be happy to know that in EU 5 colonization will never happen as players will stop playing shortly after colonization becomes a thing

 

[Sharkoman]

As a fan of the extended timeline mod I think more emphasis should be put on that part. I LOVED the barbarian invasion of Rome and the multiple heirs that would split your barbarian kingdoms. Ancient Rome in EU4 was similar to Ming. You just had to wait for Rome to attack someone and get a little weakened and then every bordering German nation declared on Rome all at once and it became a feeding frenzy.

The fall of the Roman Empire, fall of Charlemagne, the rise of the Tartarian Empire ("mongol" empire), the rise of the Ottomans/British/Russian Empires, rise of the USA and the rise of modern Prussia empire.

Extended timeline had some very interesting mechanics that don't exist in the regular game like the German barbarians, the development of cultures like french and anglo-saxon, large empire negative modifiers, the great schism, the great plague, mongol and Rashidun invasion, rebels that would take some of your provinces and become a separate nation and would have to win a war to become independent like the seljuks. building nukes to destroy development in a province, the space race, communism, European Union had an interesting concept but was always broken, and you had late game resources similar to coal like oil and uranium.

I just hope the timeline will be longer in EU5 than in EU4. A start date of 1356 And an end date near present day would be great.

 

[EUnderhill]

As a fan of the extended timeline mod I think more emphasis should be put on that part. I LOVED the barbarian invasion of Rome and the multiple heirs that would split your barbarian kingdoms. Ancient Rome in EU4 was similar to Ming. You just had to wait for Rome to attack someone and get a little weakened and then every bordering German nation declared on Rome all at once and it became a feeding frenzy.

The fall of the Roman Empire, fall of Charlemagne, the rise of the Tartarian Empire ("mongol" empire), the rise of the Ottomans/British/Russian Empires, rise of the USA and the rise of modern Prussia empire.

Extended timeline had some very interesting mechanics that don't exist in the regular game like the German barbarians, the development of cultures like french and anglo-saxon, large empire negative modifiers, the great schism, the great plague, mongol and Rashidun invasion, rebels that would take some of your provinces and become a separate nation and would have to win a war to become independent like the seljuks. building nukes to destroy development in a province, the space race, communism, European Union had an interesting concept but was always broken, and you had late game resources similar to coal like oil and uranium.

I just hope the timeline will be longer in EU5 than in EU4. A start date of 1356 And an end date near present day would be great.

Dear Lord no...a 1356 start date is fine so long as the game ends ~1648 and the AI is coded to play that way.

 

[Abnormalmind]

Dear Lord no...a 1356 start date is fine so long as the game ends ~1648 and the AI is coded to play that way.

It appears the start date is 1337

Tinto Talks

forum.paradoxplaza.com

 

[Lavilledieu]

Why 1492 is better than 1444 for an Early Modern game.

I very much disagree with this, precisely because the cleaned up map offers less interesting gameplay. Because the big empires have consolidated, it's nigh impossible for any minor country to achieve anything. Because the big empires have consolidated, you have even less challenges when playing as them except for the other consolidated empires, each and every game you start. Never will Venice achieve victory over the Ottomans, something I've otherwise seen happen in 1444 starts because the Ottomans don't start all-powerful. The only thing ever threating England from not owning all of the British Islands, is the combination of the 100 years war and the war of the roses. 1492 is after this.

My guess is that you only play as the historically successful nations and are only interested in fighting epic wars against those. Because if you ever want to play in 1492 as an Irish minor, Morocco, Georgia,... your experience will be atrocious because your expansion options are much smaller and the local threat is much larger.

edit: welp, I didn't realize someone had necroed this thread

 

[LAVA7171]

I would put the start date in 1405. It represents the death of Tamerlane, the last nomadic ruled that was able to conquer and dominate a large, settled population. This represents a decisive tip in the scales towards a sedentary, centralised rule across the whole planet, one of the most pivotal moments in history and what I believe started the early modern era and ended the medieval era.

I have no clue how Eu5, with its start in 1337, is going to deal with the rise of the Timurids, which is almost inevitable historically speaking, as he was already born. I have a feeling they are either going to become the final boss or never exist. I hope they are dealt with appropriately, though.

As a sidenote, the Mughals and Qing were NOT nomadic people, that is a misconception.

 

[The Macedonian]

I think there is an obvious sweet spot between too deterministic and too random in outcomes. I think most people enjoy a range of putting a bit of topspin on History to completely rewriting history with the Ulmic World Empire. What I think no one likes is the same 7 nations doing the same 7 things, absent player intervention, every game.

I was really happy to see in one of my campaigns an organic formation of Westphalia of all things!

1444 is a pretty good start date, particularly for Central and Eastern Europe -- because of the Varna Aftermath and the decay of the Western Hordes.
1337 provides for a bit more wide-open Eastern Europe, but also a bit more flux in Western Europe. The Reconquista could still be reversed (by the AI), the 100+ Years War is about to kick off.

I'll be interested in whether the AI is better too, it would be interesting if the AI could scale better or worse depending on the talent/incompetence of the current ruler. We currently have some "personality" traits in rulers, but they behave pretty much the same in war, for example.

 

[BoomKidneyShot]

I would put the start date in 1405. It represents the death of Tamerlane, the last nomadic ruled that was able to conquer and dominate a large, settled population. This represents a decisive tip in the scales towards a sedentary, centralised rule across the whole planet, one of the most pivotal moments in history and what I believe started the early modern era and ended the medieval era.

I have no clue how Eu5, with its start in 1337, is going to deal with the rise of the Timurids, which is almost inevitable historically speaking, as he was already born. I have a feeling they are either going to become the final boss or never exist. I hope they are dealt with appropriately, though.

As a sidenote, the Mughals and Qing were NOT nomadic people, that is a misconception.

Timur is only a year old in 1337. There's nothing at all to make the Timurids inevitable at that point.

 

[LAVA7171]

Timur is only a year old in 1337. There's nothing at all to make the Timurids inevitable at that point.

No, He was a bit older. The 1336 birthdate is super controversial, and most historians say is fabricated, as it was not mentioned in historical records until after his death and it is too conveniently located as shortly after the death of the last khan of the Ilkhanate. He was likely born in 1320s according to most historians, since that is what sources during his life stated.

Matterless, I can agree the "inevitable" argument is hairy and was a reckless use of words by me, I think they should still be represented because their influence was enormous, particularly in India and Iran and removing them likely completely reshapes the history of particularly India.

 

[Lee Saxon]

I don't know if we need multiple start-dates, but I do love the idea of pushing the start date back to a point when "Byzantium" actually has a chance without cheesing it.

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.

This would be great, but I don't think it would really happen in this sort of game.

I suppose the absence of the Ottomans could fire certain events which forcibly prevented those events, or something like that. Absent that, I doubt it would change anything: it's, after all, still gonna be a map-painting game where players expand simply for the sake of expansion rather than due to real-world motivations like circumventing the Ottomans.