In defense of an earlier start date

[D313.m]

Scroll down for TL;DR

Queen Victoria was born in 1819, was crowned in 1837, and died in 1901. Victoria 2 spans from 1 year from before she became queen (1836) to 35 years after she died.
The start date of Victoria 2 feels pretty arbitrary. Indeed, the in-game explanation of the main start date talks about "the Concert of Europe", a system that the great powers adopted to maintain the balance of power in the continent. However, this "system" arguably began with the 1814 Congress of Vienna, a whopping 22 years before the start of the game.

If the game is to start in a meaningful date, it think good candidates would be:

• 1814: the year of the aforementioned Congress of Vienna.
• 1821: when all the Latin American countries, barring Cuba, finished declaring independence (at least from Spain and not from each other).
• 1830: the London Conference that led to the creation of Belgium. An event that helped to keep the balance in Europe, so it would be meaningful in the context of the Concert.
• 1837: The Victorian era begins.

Now, here are the reasons why I think these start dates are better than the 1836 one.

• 1814: In my opinion, it is a bit too early. Europe is just recovering from the Napoleonic Wars, the Spanish Empire is collapsing (but hasn't yet, potentially shifting the balance of power drastically).
• 1821: There are many big countries in Latin America, many of them doomed to collapse (and lacking recognition of other Western countries, a nice opportunity to use the new system of international recognition). The continent is plagued with revolts and war. Spain could try to rebuild its empire (possibly after dealing with the Carlists). America is just be starting its westwards expansion, allowing for an interesting pioneer mechanic. The Canadian border is yet undecided. Portugal and Brazil could decide to remain united or part ways (as they did the following year). Europe has recovered more by now, but the Belgian question may start yet another conflict. The Greek War of Independence started this same year, as well as the Wallachian uprising.
• 1830: The Belgian question and the Polish November Uprising are quite interesting events. However, if the game manages to simulate the socio-political situation in those two countries, these two events could still happen if an earlier start date was preferred.
• 1836: This is what we have right now. Ughh, the Texan war is still raging. The Xhosa (?) are at war with the UK. The Carlist revolt is still raging and the same goes for the Albanian revolt (but both started 3 years earlier).
• 1837: Queen Victoria, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland Queen, Defender of the Faith, some other monarchist gibberish, is crowned.

Finally, having something like 3 or 4 start dates (1821, 1837, 1861, 1914?) wouldn't be as bad as having 12(!) like in EU4. 1 would be fine, tho.


TL;DR: 1836 as a starting date is not ideal, things happened, but not much started that year. 1814 and the Congress of Vienna mark the end of the Napoleonic Wars, but Europe is still devastated and borders have just been redrawn. 1821 is the perfect date in my opinion: the Spanish Empire loses all of its continental colonies (thus ending the “old colonial system” and giving way to the Anglo-centred Victorian era) and the Ottoman Empire starts disintegrating (Greece, Wallachia). 1830 features the creation of Belgium and a Polish uprising. 1837 is the year queen Victoria was crowned.


I am willing to be corrected or debate on any of the points mentioned here. Thank you for reading and have a nice day!

 

[Comrade_Austin]

The devs have stated that they have no immediate plans for any other start dates, but I love the idea. Yes 1836 is arbitrary, but it's ingrained into the Hoi & Vicky franchises, both always start 100 years apart, and the industrial revolution really kicked off in the mid 1830s for much of the world. And the entire history of Victoria has really been to maximize 100 years of momentous change, and to end at the start of the rearmament is a nice sendoff into Hoi.

I would like to see a mod with start dates earlier, perhaps even in 1810 with the chance to steer Napoleonic France to glory instead of defeat.

 

[Xaelyn]

I'd love an earlier start date going back as far as the french revolution, but I think that one is going to have be a mod.

 

[vyshan]

I'd love an earlier start date going back as far as the french revolution, but I think that one is going to have be a mod.

One day I would love a start around 1760 to coincide with the beginnings of the Industrial revolution and allow one to play through american and french revolutions. Might be best for a mod but I think this would be more suitable to vicky's system then eu4 but tis just me.

 

[wilcoxchar]

The start date is 1836 so you can play as Texas from a historical starting point. That's really it.

 

[MinhowMinhow]

For a future DLC it would be a great start date. For now a 1836 start date would be better, for develepment reasons. But in future a 1821 would be great.

 

[Xaelyn]

The start date is 1836 so you can play as Texas from a historical starting point. That's really it.

Is this what Americans actually believe?

If they really want certain countries to be playable prior to independence they can easily represent them as a form of subject.

 

[EUnderhill]

Is this what Americans actually believe?

If they really want certain countries to be playable prior to independence they can easily represent them as a form of subject.

I think it was Johan's call to play Texas. It least that is the legend that has been passed down over the years.

 

[EUnderhill]

One day I would love a start around 1760 to coincide with the beginnings of the Industrial revolution and allow one to play through american and french revolutions. Might be best for a mod but I think this would be more suitable to vicky's system then eu4 but tis just me.

I think the Vicky system could be adapted to that, but I would prefer it in a context that ends the game early 1800s.

 

[Rubidium]

Is this what Americans actually believe?

If they really want certain countries to be playable prior to independence they can easily represent them as a form of subject.

Having Texas as a subject of Mexico would be even weirder (it would be like having CSA from the start as a subject of the USA pre-1860).

That said, while 1836 is fairly arbitrary, any start date really needs to be after the Latin American revolutions at the earliest. No Paradox game has ever been good at representing blobs collapsing, and I doubt that changes in Vic3.

The French Revolution and Napoleon are even worse: Victoria 3 is explicitly not meant to be a war game (to the point that one of the stated design goals was to make everything doable in war doable through diplomacy as well). So start dates centered around global wars are problematic in general.

 

[wilcoxchar]

Is this what Americans actually believe?

If they really want certain countries to be playable prior to independence they can easily represent them as a form of subject.

 

[RELee]

Is this what Americans actually believe?

It's what Johan said many moons ago. Was he pulling our leg? Quite possibly. He was a lot more relaxed and loose with his posts then. Is it what Americans believe? Sure why not?

I have it on good authority that we are unbearably naive.

Oops. Emu'd.

 

[endersaim]

I'm of the opinion that the period 17xx to 1836 should be covered by an entirely new Paradox game: cutting off the end of eu4 era. Everyone knows that late game eu4 is bad and very few people play their campaigns into the 1700s (rarely). A new game would allow a vic2 style where a short timeframe allows incredible depth with many interesting events such as the British conquest of India, American Revolution, French Revolution, Napoleonic Wars, Latin American wars of independence, ect. I wouldn't mind this theoretical game starting in 1756 with the battle lines of the 7 years war already drawn. It would really emphasize the era's focus on warfare.

This era of history isn't experienced in paradox games (aforementioned eu4 problem), and absolutely can't be covered well by eu5 if that game spans 400 years. You guys are being small brained saying that it should be chucked in with Vic3.

 

[EUnderhill]

Gap years are ok...it doesn't need to go to 1836.

 

[JagLover]

I think there is a great deal of work that goes into the start date to model pops and so we are stuck with 1836 for the main game.

A DLC that offers you an option of an 1821 start would be very useful though. As above 1821 seems the more "logical" start date. It fits the end of EU IV. Europe has "settled down" after the end of the Napoleonic wars and Spanish empire has gone.

 

[Avian Overlord]

1821 is the perfect date in my opinion: the Spanish Empire loses all of its continental colonies (thus ending the “old colonial system” and giving way to the Anglo-centred Victorian era) and the Ottoman Empire starts disintegrating (Greece, Wallachia).

I also like 1821, but the thing about a chaotic start is that it needs to be balanced to be... chaotic, rather than always going in the same historic or (more likely) ahistoric direction every game.

1821 is also fun because the July revolution in France hasn't happened yet. France can potentially stay restored, establish a second republic early or go the historical route with a different monarchy. Likewise, in Britain the Reform Act hasn't been passed yet, which opens up the possibility of a more conservative Britain (or a revolution against said conservative Britain). Spain has a liberal government in imminent danger from French invasion. American politics on the other hand are momentarily stable, as the Federalist party just yeeted itself off a cliff but Andrew Jackson is waiting in the wings to break the system in half. Things are simply less set across the board, and that's a feature, not a bug.

 

[MinhowMinhow]

No Paradox game has ever been good at representing blobs collapsing, and I doubt that changes in Vic3.

Depends, big blobs are hard to collapse, but starting scenarios with collapsing ones are well implemented.
See Timurids in EU4, the were a massive blob, but to better represent their collapse, they were split into many vassals, and after their Khan death, their liberty desire increased.
They could do the same with the spanish empire, treating each vice royalty and colony as a vassal, like already is in EU4, but with a high liberty desire, giving the option for the player to play with side it wishes.

 

[Markusw7]

I'm really not in favour of earlier start dates, they mean more work for devs when you have new DLC's, most people only play the earliest start date and I really don't like the idea of Belgium not getting created or Spain holding onto any of South America both of which would likely happen often.

 

[FOARP]

start dates centered around global wars are problematic in general.

And end dates?

1836 was selected randomly, basically. There's no real significance to the date they selected other than it being 100 years before the start of HOI. I also agree that the basic themes of imperialism and industrialisation are not obviously any less applicable to 1750 onwards than they are to 1836.

That said I'm not that bothered about when the start date is. March of the Eagles at least exists, it's just a pity that not enough people bought it.

 

[EUnderhill]

And end dates?

1836 was selected randomly, basically. There's no real significance to the date they selected other than it being 100 years before the start of HOI. I also agree that the basic themes of imperialism and industrialisation are not obviously any less applicable to 1750 onwards than they are to 1836.

That said I'm not that bothered about when the start date is. March of the Eagles at least exists, it's just a pity that not enough people bought it.

When the initial selection of 1836 was made to start, the end date was 1919, not 1936.