Timeline for EU series

[Skyaway]

Edited: New DD try to use age system, a bold attempt.
But I am not really optimistic, the problem inside cant be solved by single feature.
Seems Paradox really want to achieve more historic simulation,
which should focus more on Europe and pre-Westphalia period.

As Vanilla
2001：EU1 1492~1792
2001：EU2 1419~1820
2007：EU3 1453~1789
2013：EU4 1444~1821

There are many fans want more time, which always made Paradox extend timeline anyway.
BUT as the EU4 get more expansion, most of the features indeed focus on/change early game.
Paradox already give up later bookmark, as they said most player start at 1444.
After Thirty Years' War, the mid-to-late game experience is pale and weak.
The late-game cant be fun as the first 200 year (1444~1648), and the gap is clear.

So if EU5 will be release 3~5 years later, maybe the timeline should be reconsider.
As EU series grow up, timeline like Kalmar Union should be broken.
Indeed, mid-15th to early-19th Century could be diveded to two parts.

Here is my example.
1453~1660, Age of Discovery：European travel and explore the world, Russian explore Siberia, core of EU4.
1670~1820, Age of Enlightenment：UK, Netherlands, Sweden, Prussia and Russia were risen,
while Spain, Poland and Ottoman started their struggle.

 

[ryvoin]

Or leave the timelines as they are and instead have paradox provide official tools to convert our savegames and be able to play from ck2 to hoi4 without the need of mods.

 

[Biggie Smalls]

Who is Nappleon, and what did he do to end up on the box art?

 

[Skyaway]

Edited after the New DD for EU4.

 

[yourworstnightm]

Who is Nappleon, and what did he do to end up on the box art?

He conquered the Roman Empire and made Tannu Tuva his capital.

 

[wetblowdryer]

Is that Genoa's flag of England's flag? I would assume England, but Sweden's is on there, so it's possible another only-somewhat-relevant country's flag could be on there.

 

[Atlantians]

I would prefer CKIII be Fall of Rome - Pre-Reformation and have EU4 pick up right as Europe was being driven to Colonize by the fall of Byzantium and the rise of the Ottomans.

So roughly:
CKIII -
400AD - MAY 29 1453AD

EUV -
JUN 01
1453AD - between 1790/1830 or so.

 

[Daxn]

I would prefer CKII be Fall of Rome - Pre-Reformation and have EU4 pick up right as Europe was being driven to Colonize by the fall of Byzantium and the rise of the Ottomans.

So roughly:
CKII -
400AD - MAY 29 1453AD

EUV -
JUN 01
1453AD - between 1790/1830 or so.

The problem with having CK extended backwards is that you won't be able to find many characters, especially in parts of the world where documenting was not a thing just yet. You'd need to make up loads and loads of characters. Not to mention that the principle on which Crusader Kings stands would not apply too well to the Dark Ages (something closer to how North American Native nations are played would be better)

 

[ringhloth]

But what's the point of colonizing and creating trade posts in the late 16th century if the game is going to be up in 40 years, and those trade posts aren't going to have any worthwhile returns?

 

[Atlantians]

But what's the point of colonizing and creating trade posts in the late 16th century if the game is going to be up in 40 years, and those trade posts aren't going to have any worthwhile returns?

1) More like 200 years.

2) Convert to Victoria III.

 

[ringhloth]

1) More like 200 years.

2) Convert to Victoria III.

OP said game would be broken into two parts, with one ending in 1660.

 

[theJalden]

I was just having that thought today. The game seems a little too large in its scope.

It might be possible to have a game 1492-1648, as a core game. 1648-1815 could be released as a whole new expansion, and they could plausibly go back to 1350(1337?)-1492 if they want to simulate that era.