Why Start in 1444?

[GreatWyrmGold]

I was reading a thread about Personal Unions and came across this:

Europa universalis has a problem in its time frame. In the beginning of the game we would need a crusader kings style family structure, because "nations" were more of a holdings of different dynasties. Common people didn't care if their king was a plantagenet or a valois. Everyone spoke french anyways. What mattered was what kind of relations the king managed to keep with his stronger vassals. The late game however sees the rise of nationalistic thinking and weakening of local nobilities of feudal systems. Family politics was of less importance. What also matters is the government system of countries. Ruler of netherlands might be chosen to be the king of great britain but there was never a chance to "integrate" the two countries just because of shared ruler. King wouldn't have such power in either of the two.

I've heard plenty before about how problematic it is that EUIV tries to cover such a massive range of times with one game, but this made me realize: In the early years of EUIV, countries were structured completely differently. It wasn't until later that "nations" became a thing.
Now, obviously, there's no one year where things changed. So, I wondered..."Why is 1444 the boundary where Crusader Kings ends and Europa Universalis begins?" There must be a reason.

Does anyone in the community know why 1444 is the earliest starting year in EUIV? What kinds of things were Paradox looking at there?

 

[oblio-]

The most obvious reason that comes to mind is that the last "crusade", the Battle of Varna, happened then. So it seems to be a fitting end to "Crusader" Kings

 

[calvinhobbeslik]

1444 is when the Ottomans won the Battle of Varna, so it's sort of the beginning of the rise of the Ottomans in Europe.

 

[minecraft100]

First European slave market
End of Jagiellonian Union between Hungary and Poland and Crusade of Varna, death of King Władysław III (start)
Portugese "discover" Gambia and Senegal
Start of Mehmed II reign
Treaty of Tours, 5 year truce between France and England (not shown in-game)
Egypt fails to take Rhodes from the Knights Hospitaller
Byzantium invades Athens, enforces tribute

 

[jacobsighs]

By 1444 the crusades are over...? I don't know, I haven't played CK2 yet.

 

[Haresus]

Crusades are over and the Byzantines still exist. Gotta find that sweet spot to please all the fans.

 

[Hopit]

Crusades are over and the Byzantines still exist. Gotta find that sweet spot to please all the fans.

Paradox is certainly making everything in their power so byzantines don't exist

 

[oblio-]

Crusades are over and the Byzantines still exist. Gotta find that sweet spot to please all the fans.

And the Byzantine situation is salvageable by the player. A start in 1453 (Byzantines already DOWed by the Ottomans, as Albania is in 1444) would reduce the number of people able to have a successful Byzantine campaign to 1/8th of what it is now

 

[Cynical Dreamer]

Hi,

I agree with the above posts, but I would add that there also is a "balance" factor. France isn't an unstoppable force yet, the Iberic nations haven't discovered the Americas, Austria hasn't become emperor, Russia doesn't exist, Ottomans are strong but not yet über powerfull ect. Starting a few decades later gives you a combination set in stone of major powers being Castille France Poland Austria Russia and Ottomans, and while this may happen in many games, you can also see Aragon survive, Lithuania replace Poland, Denmark become the dominating power in the Baltic (much to Paradox's team horror), France collapse and be replaced by Burgundy, and the Hansa taking over northern Germany (especially when Lucky Nations are off).

This early start date gives the game a greater re-playability, and a greater balance for an Ironman start. If you started the game in 1500, playing France Austria Ottomans or Castille would just be too easy.

 

[the cool guy]

Austria hasn't become emperor

What?

 

[Kljunas]

Paradox is certainly making everything in their power so byzantines don't exist

How so? By making the AI less retarded and fixing exploits?

 

[Freudia]

So, I wondered..."Why is 1444 the boundary where Crusader Kings ends and Europa Universalis begins?"

To my knowledge, Crusader Kings plays up to 1453. The reason we have a 1444 start is so people can play Byzantium specifically, I'd assume. EU3 started in 1399 (I think), and they found that certain things just didn't happen often enough (Muscovy and Ottomans' rise to power, namely), so they settled on 1444 to ensure certain nations started out strong enough to consistently thrive while also allowing nations who still existed prior to 1453 to be played.

By the way, games do not start where a previous game ends, in general. Victoria 2 starts in 1836, for example, while EU4 ends in 1821.

 

[ATW]

First European slave market
End of Jagiellonian Union between Hungary and Poland and Crusade of Varna, death of King Władysław III (start)
Portugese "discover" Gambia and Senegal
Start of Mehmed II reign
Treaty of Tours, 5 year truce between France and England (not shown in-game)
Egypt fails to take Rhodes from the Knights Hospitaller
Byzantium invades Athens, enforces tribute

Wasn't a 5 year truce, it was to be a 21 month truce. The biggest stipulation though, and the one that caused most trouble was the returning of Anjou and Maine to France by the English - which in 1444 isn't even possible as for some reason Provence owns them both.

As for the OP, the first bookmark is rather self explanatory.

 

[Kljunas]

To my knowledge, Crusader Kings plays up to 1453. The reason we have a 1444 start is so people can play Byzantium specifically, I'd assume. EU3 started in 1399 (I think), and they found that certain things just didn't happen often enough (Muscovy and Ottomans' rise to power, namely), so they settled on 1444 to ensure certain nations started out strong enough to consistently thrive while also allowing nations who still existed prior to 1453 to be played.

By the way, games do not start where a previous game ends, in general. Victoria 2 starts in 1836, for example, while EU4 ends in 1821.

EU3 started in 1453 in vanilla, and got the 1399 start in an expansion.

 

[Freudia]

EU3 started in 1453 in vanilla, and got the 1399 start in an expansion.

Alright, thanks for clarifying. EU3 was before I discovered Paradox, so all the information I have on it is just second-hand knowledge.

 

[brifbates]

Start date is to avoid the rampaging Byzanto-philes that were triggered by later starts in prior versions (EU 1 started in 1492 for example). 1444 allows them to exist while being late enough that the situation in Europe will usually develop along recognizable lines (Austria is emperor, Muscovy has weakened Novgorod to the point they'll eventually eliminate them, and so forth).

 

[unmerged(731476)]

The Early Modern Period. It is just before the Age of Discovery, rising importance of gunpowder, the beginnings of the Renaissance, the last years of 100 Years War, just before the Fall of Constantinople etc..

 

[Blindbohemian]

Hi,

I agree with the above posts, but I would add that there also is a "balance" factor. France isn't an unstoppable force yet, the Iberic nations haven't discovered the Americas, Austria hasn't become emperor, Russia doesn't exist, Ottomans are strong but not yet über powerfull ect. Starting a few decades later gives you a combination set in stone of major powers being Castille France Poland Austria Russia and Ottomans, and while this may happen in many games, you can also see Aragon survive, Lithuania replace Poland, Denmark become the dominating power in the Baltic (much to Paradox's team horror), France collapse and be replaced by Burgundy, and the Hansa taking over northern Germany (especially when Lucky Nations are off).

This early start date gives the game a greater re-playability, and a greater balance for an Ironman start. If you started the game in 1500, playing France Austria Ottomans or Castille would just be too easy.

And then lucky nations railroads it all anyway

 

[unmerged(731476)]

I was reading a thread about Personal Unions and came across this:



I've heard plenty before about how problematic it is that EUIV tries to cover such a massive range of times with one game, but this made me realize: In the early years of EUIV, countries were structured completely differently. It wasn't until later that "nations" became a thing.
Now, obviously, there's no one year where things changed. So, I wondered..."Why is 1444 the boundary where Crusader Kings ends and Europa Universalis begins?" There must be a reason.

Does anyone in the community know why 1444 is the earliest starting year in EUIV? What kinds of things were Paradox looking at there?

If you are talking about nationalism and nation states, then the true time period is 19th-20th century, which is Victoria 2's era.

The Middle Ages (CK2) is marked by feudalism as you say, but early modern period (EU4) is not marked by "nationhood" but rather as a period of rapid change and development in terms of the New World, gunpowder, warfare, Renaissance, science, philosophy, Reformation, Treaty of Westphalia, and so on.

Edit: Crusader Kings > Europa Universalis > Victoria > Hearts of Iron

 

[Antless]

The quote speaks of a time period that isn't even covered in EU4 (although one might say that the French Revolution kickstarted it). And even at much later dates, personal unions and integrated countries were a thing (see: Austria-Hungary and the Spanish succession crisis that was used as an excuse to start the French-German war).

As for the starting date, I wager it was just a good date right before the discovery of the new world, where the European balance of power wasn't set in stone yet. Byzantium is still around, the 100 year war isn't over, Burgundy still exists, Aragon is independent, the Kalmar Union exists, the Hansa hasn't fallen from grace completely, Lithuania is independent and TO isn't overrun, Novgorod is still around etc..