Patch 1.9 - New Achievements

[unmerged(463662)]

CK2 is probably affected by the fact that its earliest starts are tied to expansions, I'm pretty sure its post-1066 starts are equally unpopular to EU4 post 1444 starts. The general rule for our games is that almost everyone will start at whatever the earliest date they can play on is.

Bang goes my Alexiad start in CK3 then...

For EU5, it'd be really nice to have a handful of choices. No need to have every day of every year, but at least 5 starts?

EU has a couple that I've played a lot, Start of the Dutch revolt, and the rise of brandenburg when still a vassal of Poland.

Even if avid players don't always use it, the choice to do so is really appreciated...

 

[Polskers]

I find it hard to believe for some reason that almost every single start is from the earliest date possible, 99% seems a very, very high number. Some people might like the challenge of starting in the 30 Years War for example, or in China during the Ming - Qing wars, or in the American Revolution, or the Dutch Revolt. Especially non-Ironman games if they are not playing for achievements. And that no resources will be spent on any other start dates is disheartening indeed.

 

[cpm4001]

For EU5, it'd be really nice to have a handful of choices. No need to have every day of every year, but at least 5 starts?

+1; sounds like the best way to include those (however few) of us who like to play from a later start date while not requiring a ridiculous amount of work. Apart from the 1444 bookmark, I'd say at least keep the 1492 one, the Eighty Years' War, the Thirty Years' War, and the Seven Years' War starts (one major event for each century).

I find it hard to believe for some reason that almost every single start is from the earliest date possible, 99% seems a very, very high number. Some people might like the challenge of starting in the 30 Years War for example, or in China during the Ming - Qing wars, or in the American Revolution, or the Dutch Revolt. Especially non-Ironman games if they are not playing for achievements. And that no resources will be spent on any other start dates is disheartening indeed.

I find it hard to believe as well - surely there can't be only about 1% of the player base who play from a non-1444 date. Is this going solely off of Ironman data?

 

[Camtheman]

Cool stuff. Croatia formable? Also epic. Their color is nuclear waste green though, ugh.

And that Switzerland acheivement.

Need moar DDRJake streams.

Especially for that Nagpur into Germany one...

Paradox should add a Manipur WC achievement or somesuch to do with them. (OPM Animist 1 BT minor in southeastern-central Asia, east of Bengal, exists in 1444 start, surrounded by heathen Bhuddists, Hindus and Sunnis.)

 

[Polskers]

I find it hard to believe as well - surely there can't be only about 1% of the player base who play from a non-1444 date. Is this going solely off of Ironman data?

Exactly. Only 1% of the player base who play from a non-1444 start date is absurdly low IMHO. This is no insult to the devs by any means, but I'd like to see some statistical data to back that up if available.

 

[Wizzington]

Exactly. Only 1% of the player base who play from a non-1444 start date is absurdly low IMHO. This is no insult to the devs by any means, but I'd like to see some statistical data to back that up if available.

Not 1% of the playerbase, 1% of started games (IIRC it wasn't even a full 1% when I last looked at the stats).

 

[unmerged(463662)]

How many games does that almost 1% equal?

I bet loads of those games were really good fun...

Streamline the starting options by all means, but really, the tantalising option of choice is a big selling point for EU4, even if players rarely use it.

It's like buying a Ferrari to do the school run, never gets to top speed, but you always know that you could.

Don't delete every other date, we, and i think eventually you, would regret it.

 

[josh127]

I don't even give later starts a second thought usually, except for when I think I should go win the American Revolution. I'm surprised by the stat, but can understand why you wouldn't keep putting time into it. It has to be a lot of upkeep for little gain.

It was also nice of Johan to confirm EU5. He said January 2015 right?
Oddly, it will look amazingly like EU4 1.9 except it will have a "5" in the name and France will start with a PU over Austria.

 

[Enewald]

When we make EU5 we will not waste time on any other starts than the GC start. With the metrics we have collected on eu4, basically ALL(99+%) games started are from earliest possible..

Because selling new start dates is more profitable than not doing so... Day 1 DLC for an alternative game start.

People tend to start from the earliest possible date because that maximize the length of their campaign, and thus extends the enjoyability. Eventually when you release some expansion that pushes it to 1419 or 1399 start date, you would get data that suggests the same. Some people however want to be able to start as nations that only appear at a later date.

 

[cpm4001]

Not 1% of the playerbase, 1% of started games (IIRC it wasn't even a full 1% when I last looked at the stats).

And this is for both Ironman and non-Ironman? If so, it's definitely a surprise. I would've thought the at least the slightly later start dates (1453 and 1492) would be occasionally used.

How many games does that almost 1% equal?

I bet loads of those games were really good fun...

Well, I've always enjoyed my 1492-started games more than the 1444 ones, but I'm hardly a good survey sample.

 

[Elfryc]

When we make EU5 we will not waste time on any other starts than the GC start. With the metrics we have collected on eu4, basically ALL(99+%) games started are from earliest possible..

Then I fear it won't be a true Paradox game. What defines your games, Johan, is the fact that you may play every faction, everyday for the whole era spanned by the game.

I fear you created these games and don't know what the impression may have been for any new player, opening a Paradox game for the first time, and discovering he has the possibility to play any faction any time. At least that's the first impression that stunned me when I launched my first Paradox game ever, EU:Rome, for the first time. And that's also a common definition of your games in press, so I can't be the lone one thinking that.

We all know later start dates are not perfect, but at least they're here. Yes they may be improved, and yes they're an impressive amount of work done and still to be done, but you definitively shouldn't think about such a possibility.

No possibility to play France against Habsburgs in Francis I/Charles V era? No possibility to play historical Netherlands, or USA? You can't seriously say such a thing without betraying your own games.

Please Johan, you should reconsider your position.

 

[sermaciej]

And this is for both Ironman and non-Ironman? If so, it's definitely a surprise. I would've thought the at least the slightly later start dates (1453 and 1492) would be occasionally used.
.

I wonder if they have data for non-Ironman games. I mean, how would they get it?

 

[flyingchicken]

Will the new patch fix Japan's Sakoku Law decision? I just started my first Ironman game as Japan, after three games where I managed to Westernize before Western Traders could even fire (and so never did)--so of course it pops up in the one game I can't mod a fix in.

 

[grommile]

I wonder if they have data for non-Ironman games. I mean, how would they get it?

"Non-ironman" doesn't automatically mean "without the Steam client running".

Then I fear it won't be a true Paradox game. What defines your games, Johan, is the fact that you may play every faction, everyday for the whole era spanned by the game.

Vic2 doesn't let you do that (the base game offers exactly one start date; A House Divided adds exactly one more), and I don't think MotE or HoI3 do either; as such, the ability to choose arbitrary start dates clearly does not define Paradox's games.

 

[Marco Dandolo]

Then I fear it won't be a true Paradox game. What defines your games, Johan, is the fact that you may play every faction, everyday for the whole era spanned by the game.

I fear you created these games and don't know what the impression may have been for any new player, opening a Paradox game for the first time, and discovering he has the possibility to play any faction any time. At least that's the first impression that stunned me when I launched my first Paradox game ever, EU:Rome, for the first time. And that's also a common definition of your games in press, so I can't be the lone one thinking that.

We all know later start dates are not perfect, but at least they're here. Yes they may be improved, and yes they're an impressive amount of work done and still to be done, but you definitively shouldn't think about such a possibility.

No possibility to play France against Habsburgs in Francis I/Charles V era? No possibility to play historical Netherlands, or USA? You can't seriously say such a thing without betraying your own games.

Please Johan, you should reconsider your position.

I wanted to write a post regarding the possible absence of other start dates in future EU titles. Than I read this post and thought that it has become irrelevant. Almost the same words. Thank you.

"Non-ironman" doesn't automatically mean "without the Steam client running".

Vic2 doesn't let you do that (the base game offers exactly one start date; A House Divided adds exactly one more), and I don't think MotE or HoI3 do either; as such, the ability to choose arbitrary start dates clearly does not define Paradox's games.

However, we have to take in consideration the amount of work which makes Vicky an entire different game. Provinces may change in 300 years; but you have to change each province and each POP in Victoria. Finding only the historical, demographic data for every province in the world on every date is an incredible - if not impossible - task of work. Even if it's only one single date.

 

[Atilla 'The Hun']

Switzerlake
Own 99 provinces as Switzerland, with no ports.

Lolz

 

[Hakuromatsu]

When we make EU5 we will not waste time on any other starts than the GC start. With the metrics we have collected on eu4, basically ALL(99+%) games started are from earliest possible..

Bravo.

This is a solid decision. I know there's opposition to this, but I get the impression that the EU4 team already has way too much on their plate to have to worry about a spectrum of start dates, even in the back of their minds. Leave alternate start dates to mods and cheap DLCs.

 

[seeds24]

When we make EU5 we will not waste time on any other starts than the GC start. With the metrics we have collected on eu4, basically ALL(99+%) games started are from earliest possible..

How many of these started games are launched by people who bought the game on a sale and shelved it after one or two starts ?

It it good to have statistics,but it is better to know how to make a qualitative analysis of them. I bet the people who regularly use other start dates are also the ones who buy the most dlcs, so it may be not a good move to restrict their choices.

 

[seeds24]

Bravo.

This is a solid decision. I know there's opposition to this, but I get the impression that the EU4 team already has way too much on their plate to have to worry about a spectrum of start dates, even in the back of their minds. Leave alternate start dates to mods and cheap DLCs.

Yes. And since 90 % of the game are started as France, Spain, Portugal, Sweden, England, Russia and Ottomans I support the idea of restricting the player to only theses countries, Eu 4 team has already too much work. Less is more !

 

[Sidereus]

Yes. And since 90 % of the game are started as France, Spain, Portugal, Sweden, England, Russia and Ottomans I support the idea of restricting the player to only theses countries, Eu 4 team has already too much work. Less is more !

Be careful not to give them ideas, sarcasm is difficult over the Internet.