Even now I have the impression that the base game doesnt handle the transition to absolutism, the changes in military and enlightenment/revolution very well due to the long timeline that they try to simulate.
A clear nope.
A clear nope.
Do you Agree with me? extending to 1900 and industrial revolution!!!
- Thread starter Pbanned
- Start date
-
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.
Game should end around 1789 as it is not suited to the Napoleonic age, & hardly anyone plays further than that or to the end. What they should be doing is starting the game at 1399 like in EU3, which many people like, as they play mods that do this & further back.
The society in 19th century, at least after 1830s, and beyond is too radically different to be able to simulate in the same game as the society in the early modern era.
Most historians defines the early modern era to conventionally start in 1453 and ended in 1789... of course, it is not hard-set rule, as transition are usually more fluid than abrupt. And do note that the Europa Universalis IV, while primarily set in Early Modern era as defined above, actually started and ended a bit before and after that period in 1444 and 1820 respectively.
As a matter of fact, I have modded my games to end in 1836, precisely when Victoria II begun. I can only speculate as to why we have the gaps between 1820 and 1836 not covered by either games but I think the transition may be too difficult to represent in either games, as it would be a fluid mix of EUIV and Victoria 2 aspects of the society. Again, that is only a guess. I could be wrong on that.
Most historians defines the early modern era to conventionally start in 1453 and ended in 1789... of course, it is not hard-set rule, as transition are usually more fluid than abrupt. And do note that the Europa Universalis IV, while primarily set in Early Modern era as defined above, actually started and ended a bit before and after that period in 1444 and 1820 respectively.
As a matter of fact, I have modded my games to end in 1836, precisely when Victoria II begun. I can only speculate as to why we have the gaps between 1820 and 1836 not covered by either games but I think the transition may be too difficult to represent in either games, as it would be a fluid mix of EUIV and Victoria 2 aspects of the society. Again, that is only a guess. I could be wrong on that.
I'd rather see Vicky 3, mechanics dedicated to the period. Having one game stretch the entire period will never work.
Except Vicky is their best series. If they pushed the end of ck forward and the start of vicky back there would be no reason for Europa Universalis, whioch let's face it is a pretty outdated series anyway, Crusaders kings and vicky are both superior sucessors to the europa universalis games. Eu4 by comparision just feels like a board game.
There was one at launch they removed it later.
I would rahther puch the end of ck2 to either the coronation of charles V in 1500, the reformation in 1517 or even the peace of westphalia in 1648. This would of course be coupled with breakign the two early start dates of to a separate game.
EU4 starts too early as is. It really sucks that one group of players (byzantophiles) can so determine the start date that makes the game so much worse.
It wouldn't matter if paradox had actually supported the later start dates.
The question is whether EU4's game mechanics are actually well suited for the time period between 1444-1821 (or only certain parts of it). For example, coalitions are based on the Napoleonic era, standing armies were more present in the later centuries, mercenaries are considered to be the opposite of professional armies when in reality, they WERE the professional armies in Europe for a certain time period.
EU4 also represents sovereign states in a way that is probably best suited for the period after 1648. Apart from all the game mechanics that seem to be inspired by later centuries, there are also many mechanics that are quite generic and could work well in any era. The problem is just that people usually know more about the modern era so they would notice the inaccuracy if they played e.g. a WW2 game with the diplomacy system of EU4, but if the game was set in another, more obscure era, nobody would care.
So I don't think EU4 should be extended to 1900, but it's just because I'd prefer a game with specific game mechanics for that period, not because I think EU4 would be particularly bad at depicting that era (in comparison to other eras).
That's sad because 1399 was one of the most interesting start dates in terms of power balance because they were two really great powers with the Timurids and the Golden Horde while the Muslim countries started with a technological advantage. It didn't play out so well because some of the historically great powers in Europe had a tough time to rise to power, the Muslim countries were too weak after all (surrounded by Hordes and Europeans) and the game pace was a bit too quick (AI being very aggressive, alliance chains, etc.). But I think the start date itself had more potential than 1444.
EU4 also represents sovereign states in a way that is probably best suited for the period after 1648. Apart from all the game mechanics that seem to be inspired by later centuries, there are also many mechanics that are quite generic and could work well in any era. The problem is just that people usually know more about the modern era so they would notice the inaccuracy if they played e.g. a WW2 game with the diplomacy system of EU4, but if the game was set in another, more obscure era, nobody would care.
So I don't think EU4 should be extended to 1900, but it's just because I'd prefer a game with specific game mechanics for that period, not because I think EU4 would be particularly bad at depicting that era (in comparison to other eras).
That's sad because 1399 was one of the most interesting start dates in terms of power balance because they were two really great powers with the Timurids and the Golden Horde while the Muslim countries started with a technological advantage. It didn't play out so well because some of the historically great powers in Europe had a tough time to rise to power, the Muslim countries were too weak after all (surrounded by Hordes and Europeans) and the game pace was a bit too quick (AI being very aggressive, alliance chains, etc.). But I think the start date itself had more potential than 1444.
CK2 feels like a RPG and Vicky feels like a simulator, if you're trying that argument. While I acknowledge their value and quality, I have failed to enjoy them, as neither provides what EU4 gives me. Very different games, they fail to count as "successors" to EU, while the question of their superiority depends on the player. Such comparisons are unnecessary in a serious conversation (though not sure if this thread counts as that) and bring little value unless there's anyone specific feature in question.
No, just no... CK2 is already too long- the Paradox games are all so specific that they fail to encapsulate a long time period properly. Even if you break of the earlier start dates, it would fail to represent even the start of the EU4 game in an accurate and enjoyable way.
Ck2 is too long because of the two early start dates and lets face it ck2 mechanics fit the period up t the peace of westphalia better than they do the period before 1081.
And well if you like a risk game then that's fine by me but it feels like a gap in the periods paradoxes games cover because it's such a lacking game. I have nothing against Eu4 being there I just wish I could play from the start of ck2 to the end of vic2 without having to play eu4 in between. It seems like woefully inadequate covering of a period that could be interesting if it was portrayed by one of their more immersive games.
please think what will happen if time line extend to 1900?
new mechanics?
new unit tier?
expanding factories?
coronation of queen Victoria?
new colonizing in Africa? or colonizing casus belli against African nations?
such a DLC How much will sell?
and much more!
see this thread too:
https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...y-victoria-iii-never-came-to-reality.1057821/
thanks
No, in order to reproduce the economic and social transformations that happened in the 19th century the game would require much more complex economic, demographic and political mechanics, like goods being traded and transformed in other goods, with flexible prices, tariffs etc, pops are a must, and deeper political mechanics like conflicts in parliaments and governments, with different ideologies and political systems, most of these things are present in vic2 even if it's an old game (and i look forward to playing vic3
), but you would need to completely change how eu4 works to make justice to the period.I do however think there should be an Industrial Revolution institution in 1750 (since every institution spawns more or less every 50 years), there are still 71 years of gameplay, and a new good could also be introduced in this period, coal.
EU4 is so much more than a risk game, and I at least find it very immersive, probably more so any other game I have played. CK2 on the other hand is not very grounded at all, and after a few decades you might as well be playing a fantasy game just inspired by medieval times. Gameplay outside of Europe is just even worse. I also struggle to see how CK2 could handle colonialism in any decent way. Well, point is, "immersive" is a very subjective term, and your experience of it depends heavily on how you approach a title. EU4 certainly has the tools to be immersive, I think it's a matter of using these tools and finding the right sort of immersion.
and this is obviously getting off-topic.
No thanks, i would rather they spend more time and expand and polish current era, than go into more time frame that would require unique mechanics of its own etc. Too much development time to get something that will be represented in better detail in other game(s) anyway.
What I would like instead of a timeline expansion are a few more giant projects and expensive late game buildings. Like the canal projects, but with an actual payoff and sense of accomplishment.
Sure, it would sort of be just another late-game money sink, but I would enjoy the sense of your nation being able to accomplish larger projects that wouldn't have been feasible in 1444.
Sure, it would sort of be just another late-game money sink, but I would enjoy the sense of your nation being able to accomplish larger projects that wouldn't have been feasible in 1444.
As with naval mechanics I think no representation of colonialism is better than what eu4 has at the moment. Especially since they've shown they can do it well with vic2, colonialism I mean. As for naval mechanics the only game that seems to have any idea how to do that is hoi4.
And sorry, there is no way I can ever imagine eu4 is actually running a country not with monarch points and any number of abstractions that makes no sense whatsoever. Also the game fails at the most important thing in this era, the development of natural philosophy to science.
Instead it's war war and more war, and everything else is dumbed down because it might distract from warring.
Oh and all realm management is abstracted into oblivion because you can't do what when warring in rel time in multiplayer.
I don't see how a different end date adds anything to the game, without significant work being put into it that would be better spent on updates to many other things. Any historical relevance is gone by the end date anyway, so time specific events and mechanics have less and less meaning as time goes on. Also, I hate the late game.
