Will you ever expand EU4 timeline?

[ssuperflash1]

What do you need peace time mechanics for? The US has been involved in some type of armed conflict for 222 out of the 239 years the government has existed.

You don't need many peace time mechanics to fill that out.

They could add in bookmarks about a country rising up and putting the US government in it's place, it would be awesome.

Though a less controversial move could be to just push the timeline earlier.

Very, very misleading statistic that puts the Black Hawk War at the same level as the Second World War. By this measure, you could say the same about most nations, tbh.

 

[Heinrikr]

Personally I don't want a game where Russia, Austria, and the Ottomans are laughably impotent and unable to expand to their historical extent, which is what you always saw in EUIII 1399. It just doesn't feel like the early modern period to me without these states being superpowers.

Honestly 1453 is the best possible start year by an enormous margin. It avoids the HYW issue that taints English games, it puts all the historical great powers in a perfect position, and it is probably the most widely-accepted proposed starting year of the early modern era. Literally the only reason not to start at 1453 is Byzantium. And don't get me wrong, I've played me quite a few Blurple games in my day, but if we're talking historical plausibility here, the Byzzies were such a rotting husk of their former glory by the mid fifteenth century that including them almost feels wrong. They were a medieval power rooted in classical origins, and in this era they're just laughably out of place. More than that, they were the last remnant of Europe's first great civilization, and their death facilitated the rise of its second. It was literally an epochal event for Europe that set most of this period's narrative into motion. That's the sort of thing you want preceding your start date.

Of course I could just start at the 1453 start date, but I just feel dirty and weird not playing the grand campaign.

And what about 1477, so that burgundy is gone too?

 

[keynes2.0]

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

Well it's consistant across the games that there is no point to play at most start dates. Boot up as Maria Theresa sometime in the middle of the Prussia invasion. Stomp Freddy by just assigning a general to a doomstack and sending him north. Wheeeeee. It kept me amused for about 5 minutes. I tried it the other way around and it was a little more challenging but not very interesting because it doesn't feel like you are playing Prussia with a legendary warrior-king.

Whether you start in 1444 or 1744 the game doesn't feel in any way connected to history later on. So you might as well start your ahistory when the world is less blobby.

 

[Sunspawn]

And what about 1477, so that burgundy is gone too?

Unlike the fall of Byz, Burgundy being partitioned was a mere fluke - it might've been a fluke that shaped history for several centuries ahead, but it was not the predetermined result that Byz falling was in 1444. The whole BI event should be more properly called BS.

 

[jacktimes2]

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.

That is very interesting, and heartening, to know.

Also, IF you make EU5? Bahaha

 

[Sunspawn]

That is very interesting, and heartening, to know.

Also, IF you make EU5? Bahaha

What? They might decide to swear vows of poverty and give up the cash EU5 would produce for them.

 

[Kapitalisti]

Pre-selected idea groups is the one reason I don't like later start dates in EU4.

But at least now you can remove them and pick new ones. Of course using the console to top them off.

 

[Vaximillian]

Also, IF you make EU5? Bahaha

As long as they can work on EU4 and it's making profit, they don't have to make EU5, which is logical.

 

[Prodicus]

And what about 1477, so that burgundy is gone too?

Meh, Burgundy's disintegration was a big part of early modern geopolitics that cemented the rivalry between France and the Hapsburgs, brought Spain into conflict with northwestern Europe, and ultimately produced 99% of Dutch history as we know it. It was an event very much tied to the period, as opposed to a send-off to the last one like the Conquest of Constantinople. There's lots of interesting alternate history there, and none of the possibilities as depicted in-game feel especially weird or ahistorical IMHO. I think the fate of Burgundy should be kept as-is until Paradox has the resources to design it more organically.

 

[jacktimes2]

As long as they can work on EU4 and it's making profit, they don't have to make EU5, which is logical.

And when they/it can't, they'll make EU5.

 

[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%).

 

[TheDarkMaster]

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%).

While I do almost never start games on different start dates, just advancing time and seeing how the world changes is really cool.

 

[happymix91]

While I do almost never start games on different start dates, just advancing time and seeing how the world changes is really cool.

Me too. But making all historical setup is too much for dev. If there is paid-mod in Steam which was canceled, someone might make historical setup mod with great accuracy.

 

[Heinrikr]

Unlike the fall of Byz, Burgundy being partitioned was a mere fluke - it might've been a fluke that shaped history for several centuries ahead, but it was not the predetermined result that Byz falling was in 1444. The whole BI event should be more properly called BS.

The reformation was a fluke, the discovery of the americas was a fluke, and so on. It doesn't matter they were all flukes. They are very important events which defined the era. Burgundy surviving will make the world so different that it's not really the early modern period anymore.

Meh, Burgundy's disintegration was a big part of early modern geopolitics that cemented the rivalry between France and the Hapsburgs, brought Spain into conflict with northwestern Europe, and ultimately produced 99% of Dutch history as we know it. It was an event very much tied to the period, as opposed to a send-off to the last one like the Conquest of Constantinople. There's lots of interesting alternate history there, and none of the possibilities as depicted in-game feel especially weird or ahistorical IMHO. I think the fate of Burgundy should be kept as-is until Paradox has the resources to design it more organically.

In response to the unerlined: exactly! It was such an important event, which really shaped the early modern period. Alternate history is fine and all, but not when it goes waaay too far off the tracks. This is comparable to not having a reformation or discovery of the americas. Sure, there was a possiblility those wouldn't have happened, but could we really claim EU4 has a historical setting then? In my view, no. It would be a fantasy world.

 

[WeissRaben]

The reformation was a fluke, the discovery of the americas was a fluke, and so on. It doesn't matter they were all flukes. They are very important events which defined the era. Burgundy surviving will make the world so different that it's not really the early modern period anymore.

In response to the unerlined: exactly! It was such an important event, which really shaped the early modern period. Alternate history is fine and all, but not when it goes waaay too far off the tracks. This is comparable to not having a reformation or discovery of the americas. Sure, there was a possiblility those wouldn't have happened, but could we really claim EU4 has a historical setting then? In my view, no. It would be a fantasy world.

It would be a more historical setting than a Protestant Spain somewhat being considered devoutly Catholic, the President of Sweden being an absolutist, Castile and Aragon being at one another's throat and suddenly UNION, and so on. History, even when it looks like it makes no sense, makes sense. If you remove that, EVEN WHILE THE EVENTS ARE THE SAME AS OTL, it's not history. It's fantasy, more than alternate history will ever be.

 

[Sunspawn]

The reformation was a fluke, the discovery of the americas was a fluke, and so on. It doesn't matter they were all flukes. They are very important events which defined the era. Burgundy surviving will make the world so different that it's not really the early modern period anymore.

The reformation was the end result of a lengthy process that started waaaaay before 1444.
The discovery of americas was bound to happen, considering that Europe wanted spices and silks and going around the Cape of Good Hope was lengthy and bothersome - someone was bound to decide to try and take the direct route to India and run into that big, fat continent in the way.

Burgundy getting partitioned would've been easily prevented by something as minor as a baby boy being born to Charlie. Unlike the other events you specified, it was not the end result of processes that began decades ago and thus highly unlikely from a probabilities point of view.

In response to the unerlined: exactly! It was such an important event, which really shaped the early modern period. Alternate history is fine and all, but not when it goes waaay too far off the tracks. This is comparable to not having a reformation or discovery of the americas. Sure, there was a possiblility those wouldn't have happened, but could we really claim EU4 has a historical setting then? In my view, no. It would be a fantasy world.

Like I said, it is not. The importance might be similar, but not the inevitability of the discovery when compared to Charlie being a fool and dying without a male heir. And like I said, it is not that "there was a possibility... wouldn't have happened", but "it was about as likely as some rube, whose only significance was being one of the yesmen that confirmed a Habsburg emperor every time, inheriting a small strip of land and eventually having a descendant that became a genius in warfare and made Prussia a world power".

 

[Greyhound_Gen.]

While I do almost never start games on different start dates, just advancing time and seeing how the world changes is really cool.

Perhaps it would make most sense to just include a few set start dates in EU5 by default, but release a 'Start Date Selector' DLC later on for the people who do want the option? I know that will annoy some people as they'll interpret it as Paradox cutting a feature out of the game to sell as DLC later, but if less than 1% of players are using it I'm not sure it's really worth the time, money and effort for Paradox to keep adding it as a base feature in future games.

 

[Heinrikr]

It would be a more historical setting than a Protestant Spain somewhat being considered devoutly Catholic, the President of Sweden being an absolutist, Castile and Aragon being at one another's throat and suddenly UNION, and so on. History, even when it looks like it makes no sense, makes sense. If you remove that, EVEN WHILE THE EVENTS ARE THE SAME AS OTL, it's not history. It's fantasy, more than alternate history will ever be.

It certainly would not be historical, because Spain has never been Protestant and Sweden has never had a president. Historical is not the same thing as realistic. Don't confuse the two.

The reformation was the end result of a lengthy process that started waaaaay before 1444.
The discovery of americas was bound to happen, considering that Europe wanted spices and silks and going around the Cape of Good Hope was lengthy and bothersome - someone was bound to decide to try and take the direct route to India and run into that big, fat continent in the way.

Burgundy getting partitioned would've been easily prevented by something as minor as a baby boy being born to Charlie. Unlike the other events you specified, it was not the end result of processes that began decades ago and thus highly unlikely from a probabilities point of view.

Perhaps, but I don't care. I already said that it doesn't matter wheter or not it was a fluke. What matters is that the fact that Burgundy did get partitioned and it had a very great impact. I don't care how unlikely it was. The setting of the game is the early modern period, and there are certain things which define it, even if they were very improbable.

Like I said, it is not. The importance might be similar, but not the inevitability of the discovery when compared to Charlie being a fool and dying without a male heir. And like I said, it is not that "there was a possibility... wouldn't have happened", but "it was about as likely as some rube, whose only significance was being one of the yesmen that confirmed a Habsburg emperor every time, inheriting a small strip of land and eventually having a descendant that became a genius in warfare and made Prussia a world power".

Again in response to the underlined: The importance is all I care about.

 

[Chewy Yui]

Personally I don't want a game where Russia, Austria, and the Ottomans are laughably impotent and unable to expand to their historical extent, which is what you always saw in EUIII 1399. It just doesn't feel like the early modern period to me without these states being superpowers.

Honestly 1453 is the best possible start year by an enormous margin. It avoids the HYW issue that taints English games, it puts all the historical great powers in a perfect position, and it is probably the most widely-accepted proposed starting year of the early modern era. Literally the only reason not to start at 1453 is Byzantium. And don't get me wrong, I've played me quite a few Blurple games in my day, but if we're talking historical plausibility here, the Byzzies were such a rotting husk of their former glory by the mid fifteenth century that including them almost feels wrong. They were a medieval power rooted in classical origins, and in this era they're just laughably out of place. More than that, they were the last remnant of Europe's first great civilization, and their death facilitated the rise of its second. It was literally an epochal event for Europe that set most of this period's narrative into motion. That's the sort of thing you want preceding your start date.

Of course I could just start at the 1453 start date, but I just feel dirty and weird not playing the grand campaign.

Make the EU5 start date December 31st 1820, and end date January 1st 1821. Near-perfect historical outcome.

There should be more incentive for Paradox to make an earlier start date such as 1399, go in the direction where nations CAN reach their historical extent, without railroading it.

 

[stratigo]

The reformation was the end result of a lengthy process that started waaaaay before 1444.
The discovery of americas was bound to happen, considering that Europe wanted spices and silks and going around the Cape of Good Hope was lengthy and bothersome - someone was bound to decide to try and take the direct route to India and run into that big, fat continent in the way.

Burgundy getting partitioned would've been easily prevented by something as minor as a baby boy being born to Charlie. Unlike the other events you specified, it was not the end result of processes that began decades ago and thus highly unlikely from a probabilities point of view.


Like I said, it is not. The importance might be similar, but not the inevitability of the discovery when compared to Charlie being a fool and dying without a male heir. And like I said, it is not that "there was a possibility... wouldn't have happened", but "it was about as likely as some rube, whose only significance was being one of the yesmen that confirmed a Habsburg emperor every time, inheriting a small strip of land and eventually having a descendant that became a genius in warfare and made Prussia a world power".

Burgundy was doomed. It would not survive being surrounded by people it had made enemies of