The title, really. I think that the end date should be moved to 1836, so that it would coincide with Victoria's start date. An added bonus would be the game being closer to a nice 400 years and the fact that there would be a bit more time for the Revolution and Independence wars in the Americas.
With Industrialization being a theme of the next DLC, should end date be extended?
- Thread starter Me_
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Last time mentioning dates was mentioned they said it was a horrible mistake and they'll never do it again.
You're ignoring the context: they said it in response to expanding the start date, which would break the playerbase and make balancing the initial scenarios more of a hassle (like CK2 who has got 769, 867 and 1066 bookmarks to develop and balance).
To expand the end date by a couple of decades isn't much of a problem. I agree with the OP, I always found weird to see a gap between EU's 1821 and Victoria's 1836.
I don't see a problem. I honestly just want to be able to continue with iron man games after 1821. Acheivments blocked of course.
I really don't see the point in playing the game except Achievements. At this point that's the only thing I do in this game.
I found myself being bored with this game the more I play it, so now I focus on being better and getting more achievements.
Personally, I think 1789 is a better end date considering how terrible the game is at simulating the Napoleonic Era, Colonial Nations becoming independent, and some of the other things that happen at the very end of the game.
Victoria 2 has a similar problem where the very end of the game (World War I and the Great Depression) are so poorly simulated that the 1910s, 1920s, and 1930s are basically an extension of the turn of the century.
So in other words, unless they actually give the end-game some work, like turn Napoleon into a Stellaris-style end game crisis, I don't see the point. If they do, then absolutely. I'd love some proper industrialization and Napoleonic warfare to end the game with a bang.
Victoria 2 has a similar problem where the very end of the game (World War I and the Great Depression) are so poorly simulated that the 1910s, 1920s, and 1930s are basically an extension of the turn of the century.
So in other words, unless they actually give the end-game some work, like turn Napoleon into a Stellaris-style end game crisis, I don't see the point. If they do, then absolutely. I'd love some proper industrialization and Napoleonic warfare to end the game with a bang.
Last edited:
They were talking about Start Dates, not End Dates. Start dates are unliked by them because they are exhausting to make, yet few play with them.
Same difference. You want content, not just a slider moved to the right.
If they'd just move the enddate without giving anything you'd be the first one to complain about lategame being flavorless.
Besides, achievements are already easy enough. No need to give an additional 15 years during which I can eat 3k development.
Point is: Even adding years at the end changes overall balancing and needs to be taken into account.
There is no point in adding additional years with no content and "It just feels weird to have a hole between two games" isn't an argument.
This sounds cyclical to me: no attention is given to start dates because nobody plays them because no attention is given to them. I can't speak for CK2 start dates, but the entire reason I don't play other EU4 start dates is because of how wonky they are.
Start Dates used to be better and get more attention before, but nowadays PDS doesn't care to keep them regularly updated.
Alternative CK2 Start Dates are more often played though, but that's partially because you don't really lose much by doing so. With EU4, you lose a lot of decisions you have to make, a lot of flavor historical events, historical missions, etc.
This is only true if you consider less play-time per campaign to be something negative.
There are plenty of historical conflicts during EU4's time frame that would make excellent mini-campaigns: the Thirty Years' War, the English Civil War, the War of Spanish Succession, the Seven Years' War, the American Revolution, the Napoleonic Wars, and a bunch others. There are also a bunch of interesting countries such as the Mughal Empire, the Maratha Confederacy, the Qing Empire, and the United States that would be interesting to play as in their historical contexts.
You technically lose historical decisions and some flavor events, but so what?
It's also worth mentioning that the later start dates offer an alternative to having to build your empire from scratch. Choosing Austria, France, Otto, Portugal, or Spain in 1492 or 1517 instead of 1444 lets you start with these respective states already established as great powers instead of having to crawl your way up.
There's certainly value in alternate EU4 start dates, both flavor-wise and gameplay-wise.
I understand why any other start dates instead of 1444 are so unpopular: firstly because it's too hard for devs to cover all of them, and secondly due to the achievement system. On the other hand, I totally agree with the suggestion of implementing industrialization as an institute (even frigging Civ did it in a form of technology!) and making game somewhat longer.
Don't misunderstand, I very much agree. Even in this shape, I often take a later start date in EU4. I'll miss the extra bookmarks when they are gone.
But statistics are grim. Even if you could improve them and greatly increase the percentage of players that play them, it's clear they are not worth the costs
People are simply too obsessed about having as many years as possible (and about WCs, which is another reason they dislike late starts).
I wouldn’t mind an extension if they put some more mechanics in the revolution/endgame. If they could get Napoleon (or some equivalent) to pop more often and add some mechanics to simulate the coalitions fighting him, that could be quite fun.
It’s this fairly new concept called “Fun”
Recent patches have been rather lategame oriented, so they did do a little bit. Wouldn't completely disregard the possibility of them fleshing it out a bit.
And go away with this "fun" crap. You kids and your fads. What is a "fun" even supposed to be?
Get off my lawn.
Yeah, more events, buildings and staff like canals are very welcome. Maybe even institution/HRE-like system that will represent Holy Alliance in Europe after Revolutionary wars.
Agreed. It's anticlimatic when the game just ends and you're in a war or trying to finish something else.
