What defines the EU era?

[CrabHelmet]

The rise of the modern definition of a "nation", at least in Europe.

The trouble is, if this is true, then I think Europa Universalis covers too long a period of history to be useful. The idea of states as sovereign bodies doesn't really come into being in Europe until 1648, the concept of a nation-state emerging as a consequence of this. The first ~100 years of gameplay, colonialism aside, are really just "more Crusader Kings 2".

 

[Incompetent]

Globalisation

This. The era marks the first appearance of global maritime empires that could and would send their ships to any port in the world in search of business. (The Chinese could perhaps have done it a bit earlier, but they didn't want to, as there was no great demand in China for foreign goods.)

Other stories, like religious conflict or the decline of feudalism, were important to European history of the era, but trade was the one big change that was truly global in scale. Europeans' dominance over the rest of the world didn't start with a military advantage, but rather because they became the world's middlemen and bankers.

 

[Haccoude]

The trouble is, if this is true, then I think Europa Universalis covers too long a period of history to be useful. The idea of states as sovereign bodies doesn't really come into being in Europe until 1648, the concept of a nation-state emerging as a consequence of this. The first ~100 years of gameplay, colonialism aside, are really just "more Crusader Kings 2".

Rulers definitely tried to centralize their realm and organize them along the lines of the later nation states, but yes, unlike how EU4 is currently, the first 100 years need more feudalism. Otherwise it's not the "Rise" of the nation, just nations being there.

Also, in my first post I forgot something I consider not just important, but possibly an integral part of making EU4 more than jsut mappainting:
Patronage. While the concept of ruler patronising the arts and sciences did exist before, for many states it was incredibly important during the timeframe of EU4. Frederick the Great is not Frederick the Great without his intellectual love affair with the Enlightenment and everything French.

Right now, being a "Renaissance Ruler" or the equivalent in later times, is as basic as events allowing you to pay for prestige. Quite a shame.

 

[Rubidium]

TBH, the EU franchise needs to be split into 2 different games.

The first game would focus on the transition from feudalism to centralization and the concept of the nation-state. It would also focus on the Reformation and the Wars of Religion. The game would culminate in the inevitable Thirty Years War(or something like it) and end in 1650.

The second game would focus on empire building in the new world and in Asia. It would culminate in the Age of Revolution. It could probably incorporate some generalized POPs and proto-industrial activity.

Part of the problem is that these two happened simultaneously in history. Look at the date you propose for the end of the first game: 1650. By 1650, not only have many of the original French/English/Dutch colonies been established, but the Spanish have controlled most of Latin America (at least nominally) for over 100 years, and the major Spanish colonies are mature and heavily developed. To say nothing of the Portuguese holdings (although many of those were captured by the Dutch).

 

[Hari ganesh]

just about everybody is in agreement that less railraoding is always better

No

 

[hitchens]

No

Yes

 

[TheDarkMaster]

The trouble is, if this is true, then I think Europa Universalis covers too long a period of history to be useful. The idea of states as sovereign bodies doesn't really come into being in Europe until 1648, the concept of a nation-state emerging as a consequence of this. The first ~100 years of gameplay, colonialism aside, are really just "more Crusader Kings 2".

Not really. Warfare is another big part of the picture. EU's era saw the shift from levies and mercenaries being the primary military forces in the world to large standing armies and Napoleonic style of warfare. The end of EU's era coincides with the development of rifling and trenches, shortly before the American civil war. The point where warfare changed forever. It was then that suddenly all previous types of military forces where useless against rifling, machine guns, and industrial production of the first two.

 

[Gnomi]

The evolution from feudal to nation states. With the later only truly supplanting the earlier after the Peace of Westphalia.

The colonization of the Americas, but mostly only the construction of trade forts and posts outside of it.

European domination not through superior land military, technlogy or the machine gun, but superior power projection and navy enabling them to have access to the entire globe to "butt into" local politics and take advantage of internal struggles. Europeans aren't able to take on a stable India, Japan or China, but unlike them the Europeans can travel and project power to whichever of them aren't stable.

Internal politics decided not by a nobility deriving power from land, but by courtiers deriving power from offices and positions as favorites. Nobles struggling not to acquire land, but trying to undermine the monarchs' current favorites and become one themselves.

An evershifting face of Warfare. From smaller armies with a focus on quality and dominated by heavily armoured men-at-arms living off the land, to huge armies primarily of pike infantry supported by a smaller cadre of elite heavily-armoured men-at-arms rampaging countrysides, to the "Cabinet Wars" of primarily professional infantry and noble officers leaving the civilian population largely untouched (at least by earlier standards) through extensive logistics networks, to the Levée en Masse of the Napoleonic wars reintroducing the huge rampaging armies, this time in the name of Ideology instead of Religion.

The changing nature of the struggles in addition to the armies fighting them, from the dynastic politics and wars of the 15th and early 16th centuries, to the Religious wars of the 16th and up-to mid 17th centuries, to wars as an "argument between Kings" of the later 17th and the 18th centuries, to wars as a method of deciding the face and fate of Europe in the late 18th and early 19th centuries.

The sowing of the seeds of the complete European domination of the Globe in most aspects. Seeds which only grew and bloomed during the 19th century after the end of EU4.

Yes, yes, yes. It is not superior "technology", but the modern institutions that developed in Europe which gave them superiority -- especially for the countries such as England, Prussia, or France. Firearms are nothing if you don't have the ability to organize, maintain, and supply the troops who use them. Unfortunately, laypersons, even history nerds, often don't think in terms of institutions (Scharnhorst did, and he lived in EU timeframe, but he wasn't exactly a layperson), and it is something that is difficult to capture as a game mechanic.

 

[VolitionNewlove]

What defines the EU era?

It depends whether you're referring to Europe specifically, or the whole world. Until the beginnings of globalisation, it's not really possible to give a definition to a period of time, without it being region-specific, or simply being vague generalisations.