Is there going to be a world war 1 timeline?

[Demonsul]

And all of those arguments are silly, because the only barrier is the level of abstraction. There's nothing more pathetic than seeing a good suggestion getting swamped by people who nay-say on a gaming forum for a living. I've never seen such knee-jerking.

Calling it 'knee-jerking' doesn't make it so. What I see is that some people want World War I games that focus on the era World War I happened in, rather than tacking that entire era onto the few which preceded it. EU4 already covers a vast range of eras. The industrial era, with the first world war that followed it and all, should be handled with its own mechanics. We shouldn't need to fight a war in the 20th century with the game designed to emulate no further than the 18th century. That's a good thing - if I were to play a World War I game, I'd want it to feel like World War I, not the War of the Spanish Succession - which is what would definitely happen if we extended EU4 to cover WWI. Its how EU3 covered the Napoleonic Wars and all, and they never felt right from my perspective.

And that's before we look at the entire goddamn nineteenth century - the 'we already have a game for that' argument is readily apparent. If you don't want to play Victoria 2, you're not going to bloody find a better game covering that era of industrialization and nationalism, imperialism and revolution, so a bloated EU4 stretched that far can only be worse than the polished political-economic jewel that is Victoria.

 

[ABookshelf]

And all of those arguments are silly, because the only barrier is the level of abstraction. There's nothing more pathetic than seeing a good suggestion getting swamped by people who nay-say on a gaming forum for a living. I've never seen such knee-jerking.

Yeah in a way I feel like Paradox has ruined history games for their players. Players here are so convinced that Vicky 2 was the "right" way and the "only" way to do world war 1 that they won't allow another game, even one done by the same company, to even touch that era. They're convinced that any decent WW1 era game has to have this this and that because Vicky 2 had it. Instead of looking at a new game and thinking "Oh I wonder what new things they're doing this time!" we look at new games and think "IT BETTER HAVE THIS THIS AND THAT FROM THE PREVIOUS GAME OR I REFUSE TO ENJOY IT." Like seriously bro you haven't even tried it how about you have an open mind.

 

[Demonsul]

You know, to put things in perspective, I wouldn't mind an entirely new game focusing on World War I, giving it even more focus and dedication than Victoria 2 does. That way, we can focus entirely on that era and get the most out of it possible.

What I oppose is trying to cram a highly dynamic industrial century into a game focused on the early modern period, because that's not going to give a feeling remotely like World War I. When Paradox is trying to approach an era like that, they should do it justice - like they have been doing so far.

 

[Korashy]

I don't even know why this is being discussed 1 month before release. If you really want to play WW1, then play Vicky 2 or an HOI3 mod. If that's not good enough for you then tough break; good luck finding what you want elsewhere.

 

[ABookshelf]

You know, to put things in perspective, I wouldn't mind an entirely new game focusing on World War I, giving it even more focus and dedication than Victoria 2 does. That way, we can focus entirely on that era and get the most out of it possible.

What I oppose is trying to cram a highly dynamic industrial century into a game focused on the early modern period, because that's not going to give a feeling remotely like World War I. When Paradox is trying to approach an era like that, they should do it justice - like they have been doing so far.

Like I said, people aren't willing to get out of their comfort zone. WW1 is one era, colonization is another, and they should NEVER be combined because that's just not right. It CANNOT be done well.

 

[Demonsul]

Like I said, people aren't willing to get out of their comfort zone. WW1 is one era, colonization is another, and they should NEVER be combined because that's just not right. It CANNOT be done well.

It's not a matter of 'comfort zone'. There's nothing I find uncomfortable about it. What I worry is development focus - think about warfare in EU3. It's stacks running around clubbing each other. That's how EU4 seems to be handling war too. And a good thing too, it fits the era it's designed to cover like a glove, but it doesn't sound much like the miles-long trenches of the Western Front to me. If the game were to try and portray WWI well it'd need the Western Front, and to have it it'd need an entirely new army system, which would then not fit for the earlier eras. Having two different army systems would be worse for all the pointless complexity it'd introduce when the two overlapped and in transitioning from one to the other. It'd just all in all be served better by making it a different game - either one focused on the era like Vicky, or an entirely war-focused game like HOI. So please don't call me craven by insinuating that I'm afraid of new ideas - I actually have reasons for how I think.

 

[unmerged(46341)]

It is so a matter of comfort zone. This is a broad suggestion that the OP made, obviously in the hopes of sparking a discussion on fusing timelines and creating a greater game. That you all immediately went literal with it and started the virtual equivalent of a witch-burning because it threatened your pre-conceived notions of what a paradox title should be is the very definition of knee-jerking. You all should be ashamed of your lack of imagination.

 

[Demonsul]

So believing that all the time periods are better represented as separate games with separate mechanics is a 'shameful', 'knee-jerk' reaction that constitutes a 'witch-burning'?

 

[unmerged(46341)]

So believing that all the time periods are better represented as separate games with separate mechanics is a 'shameful', 'knee-jerk' reaction that constitutes a 'witch-burning'?

No, the content of the posts directed at the OP constitute those things. You can express those opinions better, but instead we have this giant circle-jerk of "It can't be done!"

 

[Demonsul]

I've seen many clear and logical arguments for why it wouldn't work, but few for why it would. The only promotions of the idea I've heard so far are 'we don't know what the EU4 mechanics are, plus Paradox could just completely rewrite them' (which I don't believe to be the case, as I don't think any one set of mechanics could cover all the vastly different eras without abstracting it to the point of a Civilization game) and 'I don't like Victoria 2 but I want to play that era so it should be included in this game instead' (which doesn't make all that much sense to me). Oh, and 'we've done it one way so far, we should do it a different way because there's more than one way to do a thing' (which I deny on the grounds of 'different' is not necessarily 'better' - you'll need to come up with a reason why it might actually be better). The rest just seem to constitute insulting those opposing the idea.

 

[Mendeth]

No, the content of the posts directed at the OP constitute those things. You can express those opinions better, but instead we have this giant circle-jerk of "It can't be done!"

To be fair, that knee-jerk reaction is most likely accurate. However, to expand a bit on why I see the OP's suggestion as misplaced fantasy:

Business: It is highly unlikely that PDX would extend EU's timeline straight through the century covered by Victoria II. It makes no commercial sense.

Context and game mechanics: The game mechanics of the EU series (obviously we don't know exactly about EUIV but educated assumptions can be made from the DDs) do not fit the 19th-20th centuries. They are too abstracted to model the socio-economic and socio-political dynamics of the period. As has been suggested a few times over the years, EUIII's mechanics were already beginning to be stretched in their application to the late 18th-early 19th centuries. A fairly obvious example of this being the rise of nationalism and the abstracted population count (moreover, and please correct me if I'm wrong but hasn't population been removed entirely from EUIV?)

Personally, I feel that the EU series' strengths are its focus upon trade, colonisation and abstracted imperialism/territorial expansion. These strengths are (with the exception of trade, but even this mechanic doesn't fit the 20th century) by and large outdated by the time period the OP would like the game extended to.

Warfare and game mechanics: In my opinion, the EU series' take on warfare so far, while suiting the 15th-18th centuries begins to creak when concerned with later conflicts. With reference to WWI, it can't model the complexities of trench warfare or the influence of reconnaissance. As I understand it from DDs, warfare in EUIV will be broadly similar to EUIII: an evolution rather than revolution.

I feel the knee-jerk reaction is justified, though I agree that it would have helped for people to explain their objections. This said, similar suggestions for extended timelines have been brought up so many times that I wouldn't be surprised if there's a weariness amongst forumers on this topic.

 

[Grubnessul]

Another problem is that most players are a superpower already by 1500 and will dominate Europe by 1650. Many won't see 1840 ever. Adding almost another century makes no sense.

 

[Wimar]

I find it hard to imagine a game like EU3 covering World War I or a period op modern history. Haven't seen EU4 yet, but what I gather from the DD's does not give me the impression it would be able to represent anything else but the early modern age. Warfare on the eastern front might be possible, but western front dynamics (or statics if you will) were pretty much the opposite from for instance napoleonic warfare and the difference in scale is immense. Expansion of industry is very hard to represent in EU3. The industry that was present in the world in the EU3-period is represented mainy by manufactories, which means theoretically every province in a country can become a great center of textile production, just like Flanders, which is imho a thoroughly stupid idea as the need for textile might just diminish a bit if it's made on a large scale across the country.

Despite my skepticism though, feel free to mod the game to make it accomodate the WWI-situation. I'm afraid it would take more than changing the end date though :S

 

[EUTony]

The argument of "we don't know the EU4 mechanics" is complete baloney. If you've followed the dev diaries, read the early access reports by journalists, watched the various streams, and have generally paid attention to this forum, you should know how the game will play now. There is nothing AT ALL to indicate that EU4 will have anything that will model industrialization, immigration, etc. found in the post-Napoleonic era. It is very similar to EU3 in many important game mechanics (combat has been changed a little, colonization hasn't changed much, religion is basically the same, etc.) except for trade and the point system (which I adore).

It also doesn't help the cause of those who want a WWI scenario that their main proponent uses such vulgarities as a "circle jerk."

Even from the standpoint of a game dev/publisher it doesn't make sense to include the 19th century and WWI in the game. Paradox already has Vicky 2, if they were to extend EU4 into Vicky's time period there would be competition for sales. I fear revenue would decline for Vicky 2 just because EU4 has a larger fan base and people would be drawn in by the newer, fancy map graphics of the Clausewitz 2 (2.5?) engine. Now us as the fans would be stuck with just EU4 and the chance for a Vicky 3 would be non-existent because the lack of profit it would produce (Why buy Vicky 3 when you can just play EU4?) Why have two of your products compete? In any competition there is a winner and loser, and a relatively small company like Paradox simply cannot afford to release two beautifully developed games only for one of the two to fail because of competition from the other. They just don't have the resources and time to waste on a project they know will fail.

TL;DR EU4 isn't the game for WWI, don't have games compete within the same company

 

[a4rino]

I play europa 3,and there's this mod that lets you play world war 1 in the timeline,you guys should add that,and more historically to,to Europa 4.

Not sure if OP is still in the discussion, but if you are looking for a WWI scenario, you might be interested in trying Darkest Hour. It was published by Paradox, is based on the HOI2 engine, and includes separate WWI and WWII scenarios. The game is still being updated and last I heard the devs were attempting to connect the WWI and WWII scenarios into a single grand campaign.

It is also quite inexpensive. You can check it out here: http://www.gamersgate.com/DD-DHHOIG/darkest-hour-a-hearts-of-iron-game

 

[minke19104]

Sure Paradox would release a dlc that extends EU 4 to world war I timeframe. Thereby killing off Vic 2, a game that is arguably the least successful in PI's lineup..,

:facepalm:

 

[ABookshelf]

TL;DR EU4 isn't the game for WWI, don't have games compete within the same company

TL;DR the game isn't even out yet so you don't know that, open your mind and don't doubt the creativity of Paradox developers

 

[Ofaloaf]

Not sure if OP is still in the discussion, but if you are looking for a WWI scenario, you might be interested in trying Darkest Hour. It was published by Paradox, is based on the HOI2 engine, and includes separate WWI and WWII scenarios. The game is still being updated and last I heard the devs were attempting to connect the WWI and WWII scenarios into a single grand campaign.

It is also quite inexpensive. You can check it out here: http://www.gamersgate.com/DD-DHHOIG/darkest-hour-a-hearts-of-iron-game

You're absolutely right about Darkest Hour, and I'm ashamed I didn't mention DH myself earlier on. The WWI scenario is solid and really gets the static western front/more dynamic eastern front down fairly solidly. Mods, as usual, flesh it out even further. I seriously recommend DH for anyone wants a good WWI scenario.

e:

TL;DR the game isn't even out yet so you don't know that, open your mind and don't doubt the creativity of Paradox developers

Have you not read any of the dev diaries?

 

[EUTony]

TL;DR the game isn't even out yet so you don't know that, open your mind and don't doubt the creativity of Paradox developers

You skipped the part where I debunked that.

"The argument of "we don't know the EU4 mechanics" is complete baloney. If you've followed the dev diaries, read the early access reports by journalists, watched the various streams, and have generally paid attention to this forum, you should know how the game will play now. There is nothing AT ALL to indicate that EU4 will have anything that will model industrialization, immigration, etc. found in the post-Napoleonic era. It is very similar to EU3 in many important game mechanics (combat has been changed a little, colonization hasn't changed much, religion is basically the same, etc.) except for trade and the point system (which I adore)."

 

[ABookshelf]

Unless you've actually played and experienced the mechanics of a game, you have no idea how well they'll actually work. You have no idea how well they even simulate the time-period that they're supposed to represent, let alone any other time period. You have no idea how well they'll work when they're all integrated together and running at the same time. Countless games have advertised great innovative mechanics only to flop, as well as there have been games with seemingly strange mechanics that have performed well. You cannot judge the mechanics of a game and they can/cannot be applied to just by reading about them. You're not even reading an objective account of the game mechanics.

You cannot declare certain things to be outside of the scope of game mechanics before the game is even out, and even after release, if you do so, you're discounting the creativity of the developers. People in this topic have provided zero evidence and pure speculation and assumption, while I've provided real examples that prove otherwise. This isn't even up for debate. It's a fact.

Here's an idea for everyone, wait a few days and change your mental sliders from 'narrowminded' to 'innovative' then reconsider the whole more timeframes issue. I'll follow through by changing my own slider towards narrowminded so I can try to understand why people think Paradox couldn't possibly make a good WW1-era simulation on the EU4 engine despite the game being unreleased.