Why did we pick 1337 for the start year?

[Johan]

So there has been a lot of speculation on the start date, where many of you have figured out the correct start date of 1st of April 1337.

So why have we picked that date? Well, there are many reasons why.

• It starts before the Black Death, which creates an early game challenge.
• France’s system of feudal loyalty is tested as Edward III is about to embark upon the Hundred Years’ War
• There is still a colony on Greenland
• We have a big Byzantium, but Ottomans are about to expand
• The rise of Timur is soon to happen
• Some powers are at their zenith, but facing big challenges, such as Mali, Delhi, or Yuan
• Some others at their start, like the Aztecs, Qusqu, Majapahit, or the Ashikaga Shogunate
• We get to model the transition from feudalism to modern states
• We get to model the transition from feudal levies to standing armies
• New institutions are blooming in Italy and the rest of Europe, such as the Renaissance or Banking
• The HRE is in a moment of change, with 3 dynasties (Wittelsbach, Luxembourg, and Habsburg) competing for it, and the Golden Bull not yet enacted
• The Catholic church is at its height, and military orders are crusading in northeastern Europe and the Mediterranean. But the Pope resides in Avignon, which will lead to the Western Schism with Rome.
• England’s control in the isles is waning as Bruce loyalists press the advantage in the Scottish Wars of Independence, and the Gaelic Irish chieftains begin to reclaim large tracts from the English Lordship. Meanwhile the seeds for the last great Welsh rebellion are being sewn.
• An intricate balance of power in Iberia between the Christian kingdoms, and the last Muslim footholds.
• A different balance of powers in regions such as Eastern Europe, the Middle East, or South East Asia.
• The Steppe Hordes and their successors of Eurasia from the Mediterranean to the Pacific.

and much more ..

 

[Johan]

A quick question. Did Tinto choose that date before or after starting to draw provinces/locations and such?

before

 

[Johan]

It wasn't the 18th century that was bad, besides army inflation. It was the revolutionary(revolutionary) mechanic that you couldn't really interact with I didn't like, if I made it that far. I forgot if it's from a DLC even, but I hope it is gone or reformed.

Neither the original revolutions mechanic nor the new one was good.

 

[Johan]

I see a valuable post by Johan in a locked relative thread, and I hope that it's allowed to reply it here.

I think the main reason for this result is the lack of playability in EU4's later history, including the unupdated and chaotic historical setting, the bloated workload due to DLC stacking, and the mission trees that mainly focus on a single narrative point. It's clear that the dates other than 1444 are largely ignored in the late life history of EU4.

It was the case LONG before we made lots of DLC. We even spent a lot of time updating 1618 for Art of War, and that did not change peoples behaviour

 

[Johan]

Quoted for truth. EU5 needs a 1450ish start date. If CK3 can make it work, @Johan can too.

the amount of work required for a ck3 startdate compared to a startdate in project caesar is not exactly the same though.

 

[Aldaron]

I would suggest, again with some familiarity with sourcework, that robust estimates are not reliably available for most locations. I would struggle to get to 50% “reliable figures” even in most of Europe.

For reference, for anyone uninitiated in the terribleness of sources for population data, even the relatively urbanised, organised and records-obsessed Romans captured so little population data that estimates about the population of the city of Rome in the second century vary between 250,000 and 2,000,000.

I read Johan’s post as suggesting that work on the map setups has been ongoing for some years. That is very plausible, and I don’t doubt that map setups for a further start date would be similarly time consuming, as I’ve said at every step.

The fixation on population information, of all things, emerged from posters in this thread. It is possible, if not terribly plausible, that as some people seem desperate to believe Tinto blasted through map setups because they’re easy and has spent four years sourcing and estimating population information location by location.

If that were the case I would strongly recommend them Juran’s work on the Pareto principle.

Well, as a matter of fact I spent 3 years of my life collecting data and estimating population data for 1356 for the M&T team. Obviously 1337 is not that far away, taking in account the losses due to the Black Death.

You are not wrong in that estimates are just estimates and that it is impossible to get accurate numbers. But there should be a starting point. People much better than me in demographics have spent much more time than me collecting data and making estimates and I have based my own estimates on their own. The fact that these numbers are impossible to check or be sure if they are accurate is irrelevant for the bigger picture. Trying to get the most plausible numbers as possible is a good enough objective.

 

[Johan]

Population setup is not only "we expect there lived 45-65k people in Västa Götaland in early 15th century", but also where was population likely to live there, what minorites exist etc. And Population setup is just one tiny fraction of whats required of a start date..

The arguments for "its easy to make a new start date" appears to me like this....

Its like seeing Sagrada Familia, and going, you can make a Notre Dame in a few months by taking the blueprints to Home Depot and start working.