Expand EU4 Time Range to 1871

[Otxoa the Wise]

I propose the EU4 time range should extend until the end of the Franco-Prussian War, ending the game in December 1871. This could be done with a DLC that I would definitely buy. The historical and military richness found between the 1830's and 1870's is too exciting to leave out of the game.

Currently the game ends the year Napoleon dies and most of Spain's colonies in the Americas achieve independence. Yet, I think military and geopolitical history in Europe, and its world influence, still continued in a similar course. Colonialism in Africa and the Pacific was huge and the rise of the American and Japanese Empires were in their midst. Mercantilism and trade domineering were still the dominant economic philosophies. The Suez Canal was yet to be built, and ocean going steam ships only became viable in 1870 ending the age of sail. In terms of warfare, wars were still being fought in battle lines, with cavalry charges, artillery support and barrages. Wars were still more a matter of sieges than of mobile fronts and responsive supply lines. The American Civil War had yet to occur, and only did America start its path towards its modern form in its aftermath. The Crimean War was also yet to take place which, along with the American Civil War, began to show the weaknesses of traditional pre-industrial military doctrines and the importance of modernization, industrialization, bureaucracy and logistics. The Crimean War also led to the decline of the Ottoman Empire, and ended the Concert of Europe which led directly to the Franco-Prussian war and the unification of Germany.

The Franco-Prussian war was the first armed conflict in which industry and modern technologies were seemlesly deployed. This allowed for an unprecedented advance which allowed Prussia to take Paris and win the war. This marked the start of modern warfare. The Franco-Prussian war led to the formation of Germany under Prussia and the German annexation of Alsace-Lorraine. The German expansionism, nationalism, and militarism that bloomed in the aftermath marked the start of the Triple Entente and the Triple Alliance. This marked the start of modern geopolitics. The end of this war led to the end of Napoleon III's reign and marked the beginning of the modern French state. All of these events directly set the stage for World War I and therefore World War II. In conclusion, the end of the Franco-Prussian war sits at the dawn of the modern era and at the dusk of the colonial era, and therefore is the most appropriate end for Europa Universalis 4.

The game already has manufacturies, coal and canals; and commercially successful railroads existed within the current game time range; so extending the game to 1871 would still make sense.

 

[Mr.Grizzly]

Personally I would like to see EU IV's time extended, and if not then for EU V, but I do think 1871 is a bit too far. Remember that Vicky starts in 1836, that means that EU would cover 35 years of Vicky's start, which too me is too much, at max it should not be jump too much into other game's time frame more then roughly a decade, similar to CK ending a little over 8 years into EU. The furthest I would like to see EU IV, or EU V, go would be 1845, so effectively you get 400 years of gameplay since really EU IV starts in 1445 since the first month and a half are just you establishing yourself. Obviously with ending at the start of 1846 means you miss out on historical events, such as the American annexation of Texas, the Mexican-American War, the declaration of the California Republic, the Oregon Treaty, Liberia being established, the Communist Manifesto being published, the French Second Republic being created, the German Revolutions, the First Schleswig War and the Taiping Revolution, but most of these events are more relevant to Vicky's time, and don't matter so much to EU. The last thing that holds me back from extending to 1872 would be that it makes the game last for 427 years, which is a huge amount of time. I only really want EU to go to 1845 at the latest to serve as a cleaning things up after the Napoleonic part of the game, to set up for a Vicky game and because mechanics that are core to EU IV are still relevant up to it. Pushing to 1872 means introducing many more mechanics to represent things such as industrialization, mass conscription and moblization of nations, rising tide of liberalism and civil rights and the ideas of nationalism really kicking off, all of which are things Vicky is meant to focus on, not EU. So would I be mad or upset if EU got pushed to 1872, no, but I don't see it necessary for EU and it hurts Vicky's early game, if you port a game over which is something I hope PDX promotes more with CK III, EU V and Vicky III once those games come out.

 

[Otxoa the Wise]

Personally I would like to see EU IV's time extended, and if not then for EU V, but I do think 1871 is a bit too far. Remember that Vicky starts in 1836, that means that EU would cover 35 years of Vicky's start, which too me is too much, at max it should not be jump too much into other game's time frame more then roughly a decade, similar to CK ending a little over 8 years into EU. The furthest I would like to see EU IV, or EU V, go would be 1845, so effectively you get 400 years of gameplay since really EU IV starts in 1445 since the first month and a half are just you establishing yourself. Obviously with ending at the start of 1846 means you miss out on historical events, such as the American annexation of Texas, the Mexican-American War, the declaration of the California Republic, the Oregon Treaty, Liberia being established, the Communist Manifesto being published, the French Second Republic being created, the German Revolutions, the First Schleswig War and the Taiping Revolution, but most of these events are more relevant to Vicky's time, and don't matter so much to EU. The last thing that holds me back from extending to 1872 would be that it makes the game last for 427 years, which is a huge amount of time. I only really want EU to go to 1845 at the latest to serve as a cleaning things up after the Napoleonic part of the game, to set up for a Vicky game and because mechanics that are core to EU IV are still relevant up to it. Pushing to 1872 means introducing many more mechanics to represent things such as industrialization, mass conscription and moblization of nations, rising tide of liberalism and civil rights and the ideas of nationalism really kicking off, all of which are things Vicky is meant to focus on, not EU. So would I be mad or upset if EU got pushed to 1872, no, but I don't see it necessary for EU and it hurts Vicky's early game, if you port a game over which is something I hope PDX promotes more with CK III, EU V and Vicky III once those games come out.

It seems that your main objection to extending to 1871 is its effect on Vicky. To be honest, it does not seem Paradox has any intentions of developing and releasing Vicky 3 anytime soon and, personally, I find Vicky a bit superfluous in the Paradox catalog. I would personally not develop new Victoria games and just make Hearts of Iron include WW1 and its prelude, starting in 1871.

As for the game length, CK2 lasts for 684 years with DLCs so 427 years is still within the current precedent, plus, the 27 year difference between the 400 you propose isn't that much, so why not include more relevant history? Just like CK2, this timeline extension would be a DLC and you do not have to play for the complete time range, but it gives you more options for later start dates.

As for mechanics, you don't have to change the game that much. You can just add couple of new buildings such as railroads, event chains and missions, and government types.

I am sure Paradox could make it work as just a big DLC. I would buy it in an instant.

 

[Mr.Grizzly]

It seems that your main objection to extending to 1871 is its effect on Vicky. To be honest, it does not seem Paradox has any intentions of developing and releasing Vicky 3 anytime soon and, personally, I find Vicky a bit superfluous in the Paradox catalog. I would personally not develop new Victoria games and just make Hearts of Iron include WW1 and its prelude, starting in 1871.

As someone who loves the time period of Vicky I extremely disagree, just because PDX neglects it and uses it as a meme doesn't mean it doesn't warrant a sequel, and considering that EU: Rome got a sequel essentially, with Imperator, I see PDX eventually making Vicky 3. Regarding HoI covering WW1 and the Interwar, I've already expressed my complete opposition to the idea. Now I don't want to list all the reasons why, but it boils down to HoI does not cover the mechanics that were more important for pre-WWI, WWI, Interwar and WWII at the same time. how do you develop a game that goes from firing at each other in the open, to major trench lines in Western Europe, while also still having mobile warfare in the Middle-East and Eastern Europe to then having a weird Interwar mix to then being WWII. Not only that but Vicky covers the rise of major social issues, something extremely important for the 19th century, how is HoI, just a wargame, suppose to run pops, nationalism, economies, new ideologies being created and more, while still being a pure wargame. The earliest I would make HoI, and I think it's perfect, would be 1930.

As for the game length, CK2 lasts for 684 years with DLCs so 427 years is still within the current precedent, plus, the 27 year difference between the 400 you propose isn't that much, so why not include more relevant history? Just like CK2, this timeline extension would be a DLC and you do not have to play for the complete time range, but it gives you more options for later start dates.

And most people don't play the full campaign from 769 to 1453 because it becomes such a long game and normally you've already achieved your goals of the campaign. Regarding the extra 27 years, it's not a lot in the grand scheme of things, but that's a little over a quarter of another 100 years, it can add up. Besides, I already view the last, around, 20 years of the game as the clean up stage, where you maybe smooth out your border, finish off those little things you wanted to do, maybe go for something crazy for fun, the extra 27 years just means you delay that clean up phase for no reason.

As for mechanics, you don't have to change the game that much. You can just add couple of new buildings such as railroads, event chains and missions, and government types.

The history of the 19th century heavily disagrees with that, Vicky isn't just industrialization and new government types being made, what's the point of throwing communism, socialism, liberalism and all sorts of other late game ideologies if they'll exist for 20 years or whatever then it just ends before those beliefs really develop and spread across the world. Why have the game end just after Germany is made, wouldn't it be more fun to continue afterward to allow a, relatively, historical game to allow a German player to keep playing after their work. Once you extend the game, it becomes another issue of "well why doesn't it end here, it's only another 10 years and let's us cover these other issues". EU is supposed to be that middle game, showing the transition from feudal states to industrial and liberal states, how people came together with their cultural brothers to unite, it's fine having the early industrial buildings or events about the rise of liberalism, but EU can never replace Vicky as the 19th century game.

If you still disagree after this, then we'll just have to disagree. For me, as stated before, EU should not go beyond 1845.

Here's my comments on having HoI covering pre-WWI to post-WWII:

https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/threads/ideas-for-hoi-5.1388033/#post-26546763

 

[Otxoa the Wise]

I get what you are saying. What I am proposing would add of the things Vicky does that EU4 doesn't to HoI4, or you could imagine adding HoI4 to Vicky? Whichever works. HoI4 already has forts and entrenching as well as mobile fronts, so it can easily have open battles and trench warfare. The opening of the stalemate, as in real life, would rely on making the front mobile by building infrastructure (adds movement speed and supply in HoI4) and the use of air support and mechanized units and tanks.

I don't want to get rid of Vicky, because all the social aspects you love are great and should be in HoI4 in the first place. I would like a merger of Vicky and HoI4 and a slight extension of EU4, but this thread is only about EU4 extension, not Vicky/HoI4 merger.

EU4 already has rebellions, revolutions and the development of parliaments and parties/estates so it could easily have more social things.

It is ok if we disagree. I just feel your concerns are more a matter of how and not of why. When there is a why, there is a how.

 

[Mr.Grizzly]

I get what you are saying. What I am proposing would add of the things Vicky does that EU4 doesn't to HoI4, or you could imagine adding HoI4 to Vicky? Whichever works. HoI4 already has forts and entrenching as well as mobile fronts, so it can easily have open battles and trench warfare. The opening of the stalemate, as in real life, would rely on making the front mobile by building infrastructure (adds movement speed and supply in HoI4) and the use of air support and mechanized units and tanks.

I don't want to get rid of Vicky, because all the social aspects you love are great and should be in HoI4 in the first place. I would like a merger of Vicky and HoI4 and a slight extension of EU4, but this thread is only about EU4 extension, not Vicky/HoI4 merger.

EU4 already has rebellions, revolutions and the development of parliaments and parties/estates so it could easily have more social things.

It is ok if we disagree. I just feel your concerns are more a matter of how and not of why. When there is a why, there is a how.

Ok, my reason of why is I quite frankly don't want one game to overlap too much with another, I don't want EUIV to become a full out crazy feudal game just because feudalism was still very big at the start and many succession wars happened throughout the game do I want the dynasty and family system improved? Absolutely. But it shouldn't replace what another game has. I view the same thing with EU IV and late game, early industrialization is fine, but overlapping too much with Vicky is bad in my opinion.

We'll just have to disagree

 

[Jams5901]

I still think 1821 is the perfect date that EU4 would suitably end. Many key themes that ran throughout Eu4 had either ended or were coming to an end.

- Mercantilist Trade - The EU4 trade model is a very mercantilist one, with the 'monopoly' trade good bonuses, trade power from terriatories and trade steering. Free Trade was starting to replace it as the main economic model in 1821. America adopted it early on, and while it is debated when Britain adopted free trade, most estimates range from the late 1700s to 1849. The trade system is severely flawed as it is, but it vaguely follows European Mercantilism.

- New World Colonialism - By this point, the British had lost the 13 colonies, France had lost most of their New World possessoins for good, Potugal had almost lost Brazil and Spain were in the process of losing their Western Empire. This was a key source of the strengths of these countries.

- Governance - By 1821, the high point of a centralised, absolue monarchy was in the past. I know there will be some argument to the slim difference between a dictatorship and an absolute monarchy, but I'd argue that the Napoleonic French Empire was the last time a monarch ruled the most powerful country in the world. The 16th and 17th centuries had started this by providing large empires that were vaguely democratic, withe the Dutch republic and the English parliment winning supremacy over the monarchy in the English civil war.

- Exploration - I know that most EU4 games have the world uncovered far sooner, but most of the world's coastline was mapped with Bering's and Cook's various expeditions.



- French Revolution and Napoleon - This is seperate from the above themes that carried out throughout the EU4 period. To me, EU4 has to end at roughly 1815. The Napoleonic Wars ended the long period of shifting alliances from the 18th Century. No major European power's (Depending on who you include in that term) would go to war for another 40 years, and there wouldn't be another major European conflegration for another 99 years. This is because something had occured in Europe that hadn't happened since the days of Rome, a hegemon. Britain was uncontested at the end of the Napoleonic wars, and the world had entered Pax Brittanica (I've never liked the term, as Britain wasn't exactly a peaceful nation, but my point still stands). By most standards, Britain had historically 'won the game'.

And this doesn't even mention the fact that themes of the 19th century I don't believe can work in EU4 (Gunboat diplomacy, opening up of economies for trade (Tariffs), manufacturing if weapons and uniforms from the industrial revolution, the rise of the middle classes and investors, an interconnected Global Economy, the social changes and demands of rights, spheres of influences and peaceful, diplomatic conventions to solve upcoming wars).

Maybe an Eu5 can last a bit longer, allowing colonisation and exploration to continue into Africa, a completely different trade system allowing a greater depth and a higher variety of economic policy, but I still think from a gameplay, thematic and historic perspective, the game should finish at about 1821ish

 

[Otxoa the Wise]

I still think 1821 is the perfect date that EU4 would suitably end. Many key themes that ran throughout Eu4 had either ended or were coming to an end.

- Mercantilist Trade - The EU4 trade model is a very mercantilist one, with the 'monopoly' trade good bonuses, trade power from terriatories and trade steering. Free Trade was starting to replace it as the main economic model in 1821. America adopted it early on, and while it is debated when Britain adopted free trade, most estimates range from the late 1700s to 1849. The trade system is severely flawed as it is, but it vaguely follows European Mercantilism.

- New World Colonialism - By this point, the British had lost the 13 colonies, France had lost most of their New World possessoins for good, Potugal had almost lost Brazil and Spain were in the process of losing their Western Empire. This was a key source of the strengths of these countries.

- Governance - By 1821, the high point of a centralised, absolue monarchy was in the past. I know there will be some argument to the slim difference between a dictatorship and an absolute monarchy, but I'd argue that the Napoleonic French Empire was the last time a monarch ruled the most powerful country in the world. The 16th and 17th centuries had started this by providing large empires that were vaguely democratic, withe the Dutch republic and the English parliment winning supremacy over the monarchy in the English civil war.

- Exploration - I know that most EU4 games have the world uncovered far sooner, but most of the world's coastline was mapped with Bering's and Cook's various expeditions.



- French Revolution and Napoleon - This is seperate from the above themes that carried out throughout the EU4 period. To me, EU4 has to end at roughly 1815. The Napoleonic Wars ended the long period of shifting alliances from the 18th Century. No major European power's (Depending on who you include in that term) would go to war for another 40 years, and there wouldn't be another major European conflegration for another 99 years. This is because something had occured in Europe that hadn't happened since the days of Rome, a hegemon. Britain was uncontested at the end of the Napoleonic wars, and the world had entered Pax Brittanica (I've never liked the term, as Britain wasn't exactly a peaceful nation, but my point still stands). By most standards, Britain had historically 'won the game'.

And this doesn't even mention the fact that themes of the 19th century I don't believe can work in EU4 (Gunboat diplomacy, opening up of economies for trade (Tariffs), manufacturing if weapons and uniforms from the industrial revolution, the rise of the middle classes and investors, an interconnected Global Economy, the social changes and demands of rights, spheres of influences and peaceful, diplomatic conventions to solve upcoming wars).

Maybe an Eu5 can last a bit longer, allowing colonisation and exploration to continue into Africa, a completely different trade system allowing a greater depth and a higher variety of economic policy, but I still think from a gameplay, thematic and historic perspective, the game should finish at about 1821ish

I would love to see this in EU5, they could actually test some mechanics for EU5 in EU4 for this time period by releasing a DLC as I proposed. After all, you don't have to buy it or play it if you don't want to.

 

[3ishop]

I think Jams5901 summed it up quite well, although I would like to see it expanded to cover up to the start of Vic. There is also the problem that EU4 does a bad job of covering the changes in the 1800s.

 

[kimidf]

rather than increasing the end date, I will reduce it to the end of the American Revolutionary or the French Revolution, when it can be said that the modern era is ending, one enters officially at the contemporary age. I think that the Napoleonic wars should have their own specific game in the style of the Hoi, that is, a short time frame of a few years that could perfectly span from 1800-1820, just as I think it should be done with World War I.

 

[Metz]

The game should at least end in 1848. Part of the game's point is to follow country's development from a decentralized medieval state into a centralized early modern period state. 19th century nationalism is a big factor and although it is included in the game, there isn't enough gameplay time for it to make a proper presence.

 

[Exsertis]

While there are reasonable historical arguments for different end dates (or start dates), I am content with the status quo for a couple of reasons:

• I don't know what Paradox's statistics say, but I would guess that most EU4 games don't get anywhere near 1821, for one reason or another. Players often move on to a new game before 1821 is reached. In which case, new content beyond 1821 would be a questionable use of scarce development resources, since many players would not see it.
  
  
• On a personal note, I find that the EU4 is most interesting from the beginning to the midgame, and becomes a lot less interesting in the lategame, since the AI can't compete with a human player over the course of several centuries. For this reason alone, I've never actually made it to 1821. So, extra content beyond 1821 wouldn't be of any value to me.