The case for the 1492 start date

[Dutchman251]

So, I would like to make a case for the 1492 start date. In my opinion, the current gamestate is focused to much on the 1444 start date, whereas the 1492 start date is much more interesting. Let me explain why.

Firstly, the 1492 start date is consolidated much more in Europe. Muscovy, France, Spain, PLC, and the Ottomans have all claimed their region. AQ, the Ottomans and Mamluks are in a stand-off to the east. The Timurids and Uzbeks are down, making the steppes there much more interesting. Moreover, the PLC is at war with both Muscovy and the Ottomans, providing an interesting result. Sweden is free as well.

What is so interesting in the setup above?

1. Spain, Portugal, England, Scotland and France all tend to pick exploration ideas soon in this setup, making the colonial game much more interesting. And that is (at least formally) the theme of the game...
2. In Europe, the great powers are already in a kind of balance, making up for much more interesting conflicts.
3. Other regions, such as India and Persia, are more dynamic.

In short, I would propose to prefer the 1492 start date over the 1444 one. This is maybe more a suggestion for EU5, but in the mean time, some achievements could be made available for the 1492 start date (for instance colonial ones).

 

[grommile]

Preferring the 1492 bookmark over the 1444.11.11 start date would require them to fix the history backtracking code, so it's not going to happen.

 

[Dutchman251]

Why? It is already playable. I don't see a problem in this what the 1444 start date has as well.

 

[Searry]

1453 Is probably the best but I see your point. At least it makes for a good start in MP.

 

[grommile]

Why? It is already playable. I don't see a problem in this what the 1444 start date has as well.

Preferring the 1492 bookmark implies making it the default. If it's the default, then the game needs to backtrack (or reload) if you want to play 1444.

(Also, the 1492 start is likely to induce salt within the context of EU4's mechanics, because it means your first idea group pick has been made for you.)

 

[Dutchman251]

Your statements are correct, and that's why I suggested it to be a EU V thing.
However, since that is something of a distant future, I would suggest to make some achievements for it (and others available for it), so it is also usable to those who are achievement hunters (like me).

 

[Adamgerd]

I actually don't understand either, why so many people love the 1444 bookmark. I mean sure you have more time, but how many people actually go up to the end par. I only went once as Naples

 

[gronak]

I actually don't understand either, why so many people love the 1444 bookmark. I mean sure you have more time, but how many people actually go up to the end par. I only went once as Naples

It's not about the length of the campaign, but rather once it becomes lategame the gameplay becomes less exiting. At the start, there are many countries to fight against, while you're at a similar strength.

 

[Martin_Mortyry]

I don't agree with 1492 being the deafult date, but it certainly is a nice place to start.

The thing about the 1444 bookmark is that it gives a lot of opportunities other dates cannot provide: you can choose your path as Poland, you can play Burgundy, reinstate English rule over France, prevent the Kalmar union from collapsing, dominate Russia as Novgorod, rebuild Timur empire and, probably the most important to some, bring the Eastern Roman Empire back to its former glory*! To be fair, some of events happening in this start-date are heavily railroaded, but these things could someday be replaced with some mechanics(namely - by fleshing out the dynastics).

Would be nice if Paradox got around and fixed at least a few of the bookmarks. The whole "vast majority of people don't play other bookmarks, so there's need to fix bugs there" sounds a little like a false cause to me. If PDX were to fix the bugs(e.g. in at least one bookmark it's impossible to play Spain because they start with over 200% overextension from Mexico) and started promoting the bookmarks(but not in the way American Dream tried to do it), it would certainly make more people willing to play in them. The 1492 one would probably be the second most popular then because, as has been mentioned, its great ballance is good for multiplayer. Would other bookmarks reach the popularity of 1444? Hell no, but the possibilities they give would be much more visible.

I know, I know, Paradox is busy with working on DLCs and other games(i.e. things that actually bring them money). Still, I'm sure many would appreciate if some things about the bookmarks(at least 1453 and 1492 ones) were fixed at good occasion, such as "the Mythical Great Bug Fixing Patch".


*yes, some of these examples are also possible in 1453 but who really cares? Exactly. And that's the problem.

 

[Trin Tragula]

(e.g. in at least one bookmark it's impossible to play Spain because they start with over 200% overextension from Mexico)

This is in fact the bug gromille referred to. If you move the date backwards things like this happen currently. Afaik there is no start date where it happens unless you do that though.
Incidentally any reported history bugs do get fixed. We hardly ever get any such reports though.
(It would be treated as a low prio bug but eu gets very few script bug reports in general so chances of it being fixed for the following patch would be high as long as it was a script/history issue).

 

[Zak Preston]

I'd rather move start date back to 1399, for example: Europe is much more fractured, therefore much less determinism and more nations have a chance to become GP.

 

[TheWalttu]

I'd rather move start date back to 1399, for example: Europe is much more fractured, therefore much less determinism and more nations have a chance to become GP.

Having 1399 as an optional start date would be very intriguing indeed. The early game is better so more of it can only be good, right?

EU4 already has some really althistory content such as custom nations and RNN, so having 1399 as an extra wouldn't be completely impossible idea.
As with other extra content, most of achievements would be naturally disabled of course.

 

[Zak Preston]

Earlier start dates should be extremely refreshing: new meta, completely new starting environment, therefore completely different starting moves. Yes, some game aspects will need an overhaul: more tech levels, possibly more ideagroups, new unit types for each group and so on. CK2 has become a much better and deeper game with earlier starting dates, and I'm sure that EU4 would benefit from this too.

 

[grommile]

However, EU3's 1399 start date was explicitly hard-rejected for EU4 as having been a terrible mistake.

 

[Zak Preston]

Just look at this beauty:

Spoiler: 1399

• France is smaller and fractured
• Iberia is the same and seems to be able to compete with France on it's own now
• HRE is... HRE =)
• Ottomans seem smaller, Mamluks are terrifying
• Golden Horde and Timurids look huge, but we know how unstable large hordes may be.
• Muscovy is small, Novgorod is large
• Poland and Lithuania are apart and Teutons seem to be a huge menace for them both
• Georgia is large

 

[grommile]

*snrk* Using size arguments based on EU3's relatively terrible map (and, in several places, completely made-up borders that bear no relationship to the state of the world in 1399) is not particularly enlightening

 

[niallmcfc]

Just look at this beauty:

Spoiler: 1399

• France is smaller and fractured
• Iberia is the same and seems to be able to compete with France on it's own now
• HRE is... HRE =)
• Ottomans seem smaller, Mamluks are terrifying
• Golden Horde and Timurids look huge, but we know how unstable large hordes may be.
• Muscovy is small, Novgorod is large
• Poland and Lithuania are apart and Teutons seem to be a huge menace for them both
• Georgia is large

It's a great start date if you hate historical plausibility. Ottomans flounder enough in 1444, as do Muscovy and Castille.

Of course, if you love Aragon, Naples, Novgorod or Bohemia it's a baller start date. Oh, and the Horde.

 

[Metz]

I'd rather have the game start in 1436 and end in 1836.

 

[Darkath]

I'd rather move start date back to 1399, for example: Europe is much more fractured, therefore much less determinism and more nations have a chance to become GP.

Problem with 1399 is the pagan Lithuania that would just get wrecked by just about anyone.

Pagan lithuania + bad horde mechanics in EU3 (you could send settlers to horde territory as long as you could defend them from hordes IIRC) usually resulted in Bohemia snaking towards the caspian sea

edit : scratch that, lithuania was christian in 1399. Though i remember a start date with pagan lithuania, might have been with a mod.

 

[grommile]

edit : scratch that, lithuania was christian in 1399. Though i remember a start date with pagan lithuania, might have been with a mod.

Definitely a mod. The conversion of Lithuania happened in 1387. (There are still a couple of pagan provinces left in the EU3 Grand Campaign start date, though.)