Will you ever expand EU4 timeline?

[Wizzington]

Most likely no.

 

[Wizzington]

How about May 28th 1453 as start date?

 

[Wizzington]

Specifically, it's the day before Constantinople falls, so you can play as Byzantium but with no army and the Ottomans besieging your capital with a 100% win chance.

 

[Wizzington]

It would be fantastic, if you could add a few achievements for the later dates. Right now, there is only one, if I remember correctly.

So there would be a motivation to play the later scenarios ...

Less than 1 in 1000 games is started in a different date than 1444 (and no, not because of the lack of achievements).

 

[Wizzington]

Perhaps that is because your history files are not so accurate or fun after 1444.

Perhaps that is also why you spend less effort on those history files.

It's a chicken and egg problem.

IMO at least, if you made the Napoleonic Wars bookmarks as balanced and realistic as the 1444 bookmark, surely more than 0.1% of people would play them.

CK2 (whose 1066 start is if anything more detailed than default Charlemagne start) also has this issue, in that 99+% of starts will be in the earliest date available to the player. It's something we've seen across all our games. More detailed (and fewer) later starts might see a percent or two starting there at most.

 

[Wizzington]

Thank you for your response. I am aware that history files take a lot of effort to compile, but personally I enjoy a variety of game starts in EU4 between 1444 and 1492 mostly. Even made a few customary bookmarks for these.

I think the statistic about game starts is misleading in several ways:

(1) The first start could be the most picked simply because it is easiest to pick it. Less time spent deciding/scrolling down. It's Bounded Rationality.

For example, I have no problem dialing the start date up to the exact month and day of certain historical events (I later modded extra Bookmarks), but sometimes I just click a random nation in the 1444 Start to check out a new feature (such as Karma). I click a random Buddhist nation in 1444 and play it for about 5 minutes. That still counts as one game start.

(2) People could also pick the earliest start because they feel like they want to get the most out of the game.

The irony is most games never last till the end date (1820 for EU4), so they could have started later and played just as long.

(3) The game slows down much in late game in EU4, so that many players tend to quit in the 1600s or 1700s. They might worry (only partly correctly) that a later game start will mean a slower game.

How is it misleading? I didn't say WHY people don't play later starts, just that they don't, and that it's something we've seen consistently across our games. If we ever make a EU5, it'll almost certainly only have one start date (possibly two or three highly detailed ones) because the immense work that would be needed to improve later starts has basically no payoff.

 

[Wizzington]

To me the WHY matters because if people are not playing later starts due to some trivial causes (some of which I listed), then if you remove some of those causes perhaps they'd be playing the later starts more. Knowing the WHY would allow one to affect the WHAT, if you will. But I understand if making later start dates more popular is not a goal for you. Your cost-benefit analysis sounds about right.

I also agree with you on EU5. 3 Starts (~1450, ~1600, ~1750) would be sufficient. Most Historical Grand Strategy games (such as some CIV mods I helped make back in the day) only ever have 1 or 2 Starts/Scenarios despite covering longer time periods than EU4.

It's unlikely to be because of 'trivial' causes due to the fact that it's so consistent across all our games.

 

[Wizzington]

Do people start games with non bookmarked dates? Using the arrows?

Exceptionally rarely. The only start besides 1444 that gets any action at all is really 1492 (and even then it's less than 0.1%).