Yeah, it's a bit odd.I'm a bit perplexed about the timeline suggestion here (not about vic 3 being in dev, that is pretty obvious considering the staff movements in paradox in the recent years).
On one hand it is quite clear that the post 1750 (or even 1700 ?) period in EU4 doesn't fit really well with the actual game. All the mechanics surrounding revolutions and such had to be ahistorically advanced to give people time to play with them before 1821 (who would want a revolution starting in 1790 if you only get 25 years to play with it ?). A few updates have tried to address this but I feel like EU4's nature prevents this.
On the other hand the 19th century does have a unique feel and maybe it is just my perception (I come from a french speaking community) but the post napoleonic world is a completely different thing than the pre-revolutionary one.
To clarify, one of the main attractions of vic 2 was that the world in 1836 was pretty much set in stone for most of the 19th century, there where changes of course (Germany, Italy) but compared to the pre-1790 world the difference is enormous. So If we have a game that starts in 1750 It would in my opinion need to have multiple start dates to make it interesting (1750 - 1821/36 - 190?) and then of course we would fall into the same problems EU4 had.
Now of course there is a big chance that EU5 is in production, and I would'nt be surprised to see a reduced scope and multiple start dates (like ck3, which is an additionnal reason to think it might go this way) that allow for a different experience without requiring to much maintenance work with each expansion. If that is the case then a vic 3 that covers 1750-1936 would make sense.
In any case i'm confident that paradox will pull it off, but i'm very curious about how
I've seen some people with the opinion that EU should be split in two games already (one before and one after 1648), but this would go in the opposite direction by combining two games into one, further extending the timeline.
Now, EU4 has had a knowingly barren late game up until last year (I think Emperor did improve it a lot, but it isn't perfect), so if this supposed EU5-Vic3 combination is to work, the late game has to be well developed from the get go, they absolutely cannot leave it to be fixed later (especially not 7 freaking years later), or else the Vicky part is going to suffer a lot, and I don't think I have to emphasize just how terrible that would be.
If the timeframe of EU was to be reduced to increase Vicky's timeframe, I imagine the best cutoff point would be 1763, at the end of the seven years war.
That leaves Prussia as an established great power, and we'd start playing on the build up to the two revolutions of the pre-Napoleonic period (American and French).
- 1
- 1
