Do you Agree with me? extending to 1900 and industrial revolution!!!

[Woifee]

I would rather expand CK2 to 1930. at this point there would be enough characters in the game to work in my industry.

 

[Pbanned]

I would rather expand CK2 to 1930. at this point there would be enough characters in the game to work in my industry.

thanks.this is an idea after all

 

[Rebel1776]

are you saying "make it unless wiz IS on it, and if so do not try it" or "make it unless wiz ISNT on it and then dont even try it"

I guess I should clarify.

If Wiz so much as breathes on Vicky3, I likely won't buy the game.

 

[Aythne]

I guess I should clarify.

If Wiz so much as breathes on Vicky3, I likely won't buy the game.

I can't wait for Vicky 3 to come out to see the looks on people's faces. It's going to be 'HoI3 grognards playing HoI4 for the first time' spectacular.

 

[YuriiH]

what will happen if time line extend to 1900?

Vicy 3

 

[Yxklyx]

Because nobody wants to maintain data for 2706 provinces over the 376-year span of the game.

You don't need to. Just create an algorithm - you program it just like all the other code in the game. You'd want to include new development levels as well. Examples: Capitals get temples, Manufactories in provinces with high trade value goods. When you press play after you select the start date - the code just generates all the buildings appropriately. It's not going to be perfect but it should be playable.

 

[Mark68]

I would actually prefer to see it go in the other direction--have EUIV end at the Age of Revolutions (either 1789 [start of French Revolution/Napoleonic Era], 1775 [start of American Revolution], or 1756 [start of Seven Years' War, which directly/indirectly led to the American & French Revolutions]). Have Vicky 3 (or give it some other title, since Vicky wouldn't be crowned until several decades in) start at that EUIV end point.

 

[Count_of_Ljubljana]

I would actually prefer to see it go in the other direction--have EUIV end at the Age of Revolutions (either 1789 [start of French Revolution/Napoleonic Era], 1775 [start of American Revolution], or 1756 [start of Seven Years' War, which directly/indirectly led to the American & French Revolutions]). Have Vicky 3 (or give it some other title, since Vicky wouldn't be crowned until several decades in) start at that EUIV end point.

I actually agree, and there was actually a Napoleonic game... *cough cough March of the Eagles cough cough*

 

[Restless Native]

"Do you agree with me ? "

No
/thread

 

[otaats]

Leave it for Vicky III. The way EUIV works doesn't fit with Victoria.

 

[Threshold]

I actually agree, and there was actually a Napoleonic game... *cough cough March of the Eagles cough cough*

Came here to say this. Thanks for doing it so I didn't have to.

With that out of the way...

The simple fact of the matter is that EU is arguably already packing too many eras into one game engine, and adding even more eras on top of that would make a worse game, rather than a better one. So I disagree.

However, it's worth noting that the age mechanics allow for more concrete distinctions between such eras, and thanks to player suggestions in the aftermath of initial release of said feature, the transition from one to the next has become more fluid. This is to say that the engine is moving (albeit very slowly) towards being able to accomplish what you're looking for, without it being terribly jarring and distorted.

I suspect this means that longer timeline mods will improve, as they're given more tools to work with. But even if we reach a point where it is possible to fit more eras into one game, I doubt very much that Paradox will ever do it; as the foray into the Napoleonic era by way of March of the Eagles shows, they desire to have as few eras per game as is viable, so as to straddle as many communities as they can. This is not only ideal from a financial perspective-as it allows them access to additional submarkets, and development costs would not be significantly reduced by merging all entities into a single game-but also from a gamer's perspective, as it allows the games that we get from them to be smaller and faster thanks to not having needless weight.

tl;dr: We get better games, and Paradox gets more money, when we split history into many different games, rather than trying to model the entire thing at once. It's a win-win.

 

[Pbanned]

Came here to say this. Thanks for doing it so I didn't have to.

With that out of the way...

The simple fact of the matter is that EU is arguably already packing too many eras into one game engine, and adding even more eras on top of that would make a worse game, rather than a better one. So I disagree.

However, it's worth noting that the age mechanics allow for more concrete distinctions between such eras, and thanks to player suggestions in the aftermath of initial release of said feature, the transition from one to the next has become more fluid. This is to say that the engine is moving (albeit very slowly) towards being able to accomplish what you're looking for, without it being terribly jarring and distorted.

I suspect this means that longer timeline mods will improve, as they're given more tools to work with. But even if we reach a point where it is possible to fit more eras into one game, I doubt very much that Paradox will ever do it; as the foray into the Napoleonic era by way of March of the Eagles shows, they desire to have as few eras per game as is viable, so as to straddle as many communities as they can. This is not only ideal from a financial perspective-as it allows them access to additional submarkets, and development costs would not be significantly reduced by merging all entities into a single game-but also from a gamer's perspective, as it allows the games that we get from them to be smaller and faster thanks to not having needless weight.

tl;dr: We get better games, and Paradox gets more money, when we split history into many different games, rather than trying to model the entire thing at once. It's a win-win.

Let me see understand true or not : As your opinion it's better to split EU4 into some games. E.G. splitting Napoleonic era into one game and other eras to other games. is it true?