Will you ever expand EU4 timeline?

[Sunspawn]

Why the hate? Did a Byzantine emperor steal your girl/boyfriend or something?

Backlash against the obnoxious Byz fanboyism. Some people in the forums would be willing to deepthroat Byzantine emperors if they were brought back to life somehow.

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.

And with Morea as a vassal, preferrably.

IIRC during early 1500s Ottomans have 100% against Moldavia (while it is still a Polish march and without Polandia involved) in the Ottoman-Moldavian War.

 

[Tufto]

People who want earlier start dates clearly never played EU3. Frankly, 1453 is a better date than any others, and if Paradox didn't have to pander to a bunch of silly Greek revanchists that's what it would be.

 

[happymix91]

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.

Wow will you do that much for start setting?

 

[RELee]

How about May 28th 1453 as start date?

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.

See?

 

[WeissRaben]

People who want earlier start dates clearly never played EU3. Frankly, 1453 is a better date than any others, and if Paradox didn't have to pander to a bunch of silly Greek revanchists that's what it would be.

I've played EU3 for years and, while it had clear, undeniable problems, these were more depending on faulty mechanics than on the starting situation (Snakehemia, anyone?). If, instead, you are telling me that the "problem" is that the historical winners didn't win enough... I would have said good riddance, and seal that coffin well. The concept of determinism in a game where chance is a thing and human intervention is a thing is so hilariously ridiculous that I don't even have words for it.

 

[NADster]

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 ...

 

[cleef]

I never have enough time to form a global empire but also take my time and enjoy the little things in life like that wine-producing island in the mediterranean that belongs to the turks (mhmm)...

 

[Nyrael]

I do wish that timeline was expanded until 1836, when Vic2 starts.

 

[cleef]

I do wish that timeline was expanded until 1836, when Vic2 starts.

It would have been a thing of common sense to do it but meh...

 

[Greyhound_Gen.]

I do wish that timeline was expanded until 1836, when Vic2 starts.

Alternatively the start date of Victoria 3 (when it happens) could be brought back to 1821 (or just before).

 

[Thorpe]

Out of curiosity, what's the reason for the antipathy towards the 1399 date? I barely touched EUIII.

 

[Basileios Makedon]

Out of curiosity, what's the reason for the antipathy towards the 1399 date? I barely touched EUIII.

Because great powers didn't become great powers

 

[LRDK]

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.

I Still think that you'll get byzantophiles trying to play them at that strt date, and then complain it's too hard

 

[Morwys]

Most likely no.

I've read, a long time ago (during EU4 development, if I'm not mistaken) that the starting timeline wouldn't be extended backwards because when that was done to EU3 it broke the game balance and made historical playthroughs very complicated. Is this the case?

 

[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).

 

[Morwys]

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

I know I started like a billion games in 1444, none in the later start dates and after hundreds of hours of gameplay, went after 1700 in a dozen or so. Finished a single game to this very date, with GB.

The early game is where it's at.

 

[ruzen]

Give us new Victoria then

 

[maitrecarotte]

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

Why then? Is it because you can start with 480% overextension as Spain? Or because desired country might have atrocious idea set completed already?

 

[Closet Skeleton]

Out of curiosity, what's the reason for the antipathy towards the 1399 date? I barely touched EUIII.

Ton of waiting time before colonisation.

Too much 100 years war that the mechanics don't work well for.

Super huge Golden Horde that annihilates Moscovy and then collapses messily.

Absence of classic dynasties like Hohenzollerns, Wettins on the thrones of key countries and over abundance of Von Luxemburgs.

Would make early game but big dynamic events less plausible.

Overpowered Milan and underpowered Venice in Italy without any representation of the factors that led to the 1444 start.

 

[vitek69]

Out of curiosity, what's the reason for the antipathy towards the 1399 date? I barely touched EUIII.

Because it inevitably produced ahistorical outcomes every single time. I am not saying it is good or bad, but it just felt...weird.

For example: Golden Horde owned most of Russia at that point, and always stomped Muscowy. Hence Russia never ever formed. Then GH promptly fell behind in tech and was steamrolled by Bohemia (who was the HRE at that time) which resulted in ridiculous borders (you see EU3 had this mechanic that if you bordered a horde, you would automatically go to war with it every time after the truce expires between the two of you)

Another example: The Ottomans really underperformed; you would rarely see them threaten the Mamelukes or Hungary. Also Venice underperformed a lot, and was usually beaten by Milan.

Also in general, the historical unions formed very rarely (Spain, Russia, being the most obvious examples)

And one more - it took pretty long until you could get to colonization, so playing a colonial game required a lot of waiting initially. Also the colonists worked much differently than now

TLDR: 1399 produced really ahistorical outcomes every single time and history fans do not like that