If Paradox in it's wisdom thinks we should have european colonization running 200 hundred years or so ahead of schedule, it's kind of consistent for them to have industrialization happening a hundred years or so too early! 
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.
Expanding the end date to 1836 would be good, I think. Maybe we could get a 1750 industrialization institution and some more buildings, as has been suggested. In a previous thread I also mentioned that I would like some more big projects like canals for the late game, but maybe a tad bit more useful.
No please. There are plenty of mods. The game is already boring enough by 1700 and they are not going to fix the issue of money no longer being an issue past 1650. So no point whatsoever extending end game. Even more so when, again, you have countless of mods that do that.
Challenges to an established state are so nonexistent I have trouble keeping the game interesting after the first century or so. I can't imagine how boring the 1800's would get if they went even further with these new black money mines.
Later start dates stopped getting dev time because metrics show that the overwhelming majority of the player-base don't use them. Users, more often than not, tend to opt for the earliest start date available. Later bookmarks are simply [and sadly] not worth the resources required to maintain them.
The same is true for CK2 and, oddly enough, even for HoI4 which has only 2 start dates -- and consequently, it was said that including the 2nd date was a mistake/waste of resources.
It has come to the point where they mentioned before that the "play at any date" feature is more than likely to be removed in future iterations [as well as the vast majority of late bookmarks].
And... the game metrics shows that it is a "negative".
How do we know that they're not used because they're not updated? Again, that sounds cyclical. People don't play them because they're not supported, but they're not supported because people don't play them.
No it doesn't.
The game metrics say that later start dates are played less. It doesn't say why they're played less. Just because one explanation fits your argument doesn't mean it's the explanation.
upon jan 21 you should be asked if you want to continue, and if so the bears should land
Last edited:
Wait, when did we switch topics to the Natives?
Muscovy is already playable from 1444
But of course it should be followed with more content! Isn't the OP's very initial suggestion about the Immersion Pack being about Industrialization?
However, even if it's just for a minor "cosmetic" purpose - like filling an extra bunch of years - I would deem it worth it, since the world in 1835 isn't *that* different from say 1805. It's my opinion of course, but if it were to be true, rejoice: you can always stop your game in 1821!
I'm hoping for a liberalism VS traditional government clash to be a late game crisis sort of thing, rather than just Napoleon or someone like him. Like, maybe some country that has all the institutions in the age of revolutions would spark a revolution movement mechanic in other advanced countries (having all institutions), where some countries will fall to revolutions more often than in the current game, and colonies are much more likely rebel and become independent too. Where the traditional and the revolutionary governments hate each other.
In fact, just making the disasters in general to be much bigger would be great. The thirty years war and such should be big.
What I'm wondering is what other latent resources there may be? The resource map may be getting really switched up during the late-game, possibly radically changing the trade dynamics of the globe during a game.
In fact, just making the disasters in general to be much bigger would be great. The thirty years war and such should be big.
What I'm wondering is what other latent resources there may be? The resource map may be getting really switched up during the late-game, possibly radically changing the trade dynamics of the globe during a game.
Last edited:
If Paradox in it's wisdom thinks we should have european colonization running 200 hundred years or so ahead of schedule, it's kind of consistent for them to have industrialization happening a hundred years or so too early!
Huh if anything colonization feels to slow right now and outside of west Africa Europe rarely expands
I would totally play other start dates if we got achievments from them. I play all sorts of start dates in CK2.
I think the Latin empire start date is the most balanced but apparently they are the least popular and having to balance all of the different start dates is a lot of effort.
I honestly think that eu4 feels way to short
Yeah. Move the end-date to 1836 and add stuff to the late game to justify a DLC.
This is partly true. Johan said that he didn't like the EU3 start date of 1399 because it didn't put Muscovy and Ottomans in a position to become strong. It's not a bad thing to have variance, but starting in 1399 eastern Europe generally remained balkanized and uninteresting. I agree with this in part because CK2 does a better job of covering that period.
Trin Triangula stated that he was against expanding the date after 1821 because of the historical effect of the Early Industrial Revolution. And here they are, adding stuff related to the Early Industrial Revolution.
Ending the game in 1789 kind of defeats the point of the "Age of Revolutions". I agree with you that Colonial Nations are badly handled in game right now, but they span for most of the period. They should be fixed in EU4, not removed or pushed into another game era. If the game is bad at Colonial Wars of Independence, than they should end the game before 1776? I don't think so.
So things that don't work in EU4 and Victoria 2 should be fixed in the eras of the game. It doesn't make sense to push some of the things that don't work in those games, like you mentioned the Great Depression, into a game that doesn't exist yet and may not do them justice either.
There is a Napoleonic Paradox game called March of Eagles. It didn't do very well in part because it lacked the scope of the bigger Paradox games, and the developer said they were unlikely to do smaller projects like March of Eagles or Sengoku again.
The reason why they are wonky is because it takes an incredible amount of work to continuously update every date after every patch.
Realistically concentrating on a few or one date is going to make a better overall game.
This is partly true. Johan said that he didn't like the EU3 start date of 1399 because it didn't put Muscovy and Ottomans in a position to become strong. It's not a bad thing to have variance, but starting in 1399 eastern Europe generally remained balkanized and uninteresting. I agree with this in part because CK2 does a better job of covering that period.
Trin Triangula stated that he was against expanding the date after 1821 because of the historical effect of the Early Industrial Revolution. And here they are, adding stuff related to the Early Industrial Revolution.
Ending the game in 1789 kind of defeats the point of the "Age of Revolutions". I agree with you that Colonial Nations are badly handled in game right now, but they span for most of the period. They should be fixed in EU4, not removed or pushed into another game era. If the game is bad at Colonial Wars of Independence, than they should end the game before 1776? I don't think so.
So things that don't work in EU4 and Victoria 2 should be fixed in the eras of the game. It doesn't make sense to push some of the things that don't work in those games, like you mentioned the Great Depression, into a game that doesn't exist yet and may not do them justice either.
There is a Napoleonic Paradox game called March of Eagles. It didn't do very well in part because it lacked the scope of the bigger Paradox games, and the developer said they were unlikely to do smaller projects like March of Eagles or Sengoku again.
The reason why they are wonky is because it takes an incredible amount of work to continuously update every date after every patch.
Realistically concentrating on a few or one date is going to make a better overall game.
Last edited:
Yes, it's a shame that the Age of Revolutions doesn't have interesting revolution mechanics.
I'm aware that March of the Eagles exists. I own both it and Sengoku. I'm not sure how it's relevant, though, other than the fact that the Napoelonic Era was brought up.
I'm not sure what this has to do with the quoted post. I know why they're wonky. You don't need to explain that to me, and aside from explain it, I'm not sure what your point is.
So you're suggesting ending EU4 in 1789 and replacing it with nothing? That also seems like a bad idea to me.
So @Nyrael wasn't being "cyclical" in his reasoning.
Canals need to be reworked in general, as they don't really offer any incentive to build them unless you're swimming in ducats late game.
Besides that, what would the "Industrialization" institute bring? Considering we have both Colonialism, Global Trade and Manufactories, which cover nearly all of what the Industrialisation did (more goods manufactured, and more trade). Perhaps something related to Production Efficiency and building cost (although that's covered in the Renaissance Institution). Any ideas?
Industrialization as an institute may be spawned only when the nation has at least 2 coal provinces and accepted all previous institutes. It may have an additional effect on estates: since the implementation, the power of burghers is increased and the nobility will fade. It will lead to redistribution of required land and maybe add new functions to a burghers and loss of functions of nobility. For example, burghers may raise stability for money (by their influence on press). Also provinces controlled by burghers may have higher revolt risk after the industrialization.
You may say that will make the institute worse, but from my point of view all institutes should have their advantages and disadvantages. In other words, they shouldn't be no-brained to accept, just as it was in history. The player's opportunity to choose between rushing technologies and having more problems and waiting for the implementation when the risks won't be significant.
You may say that will make the institute worse, but from my point of view all institutes should have their advantages and disadvantages. In other words, they shouldn't be no-brained to accept, just as it was in history. The player's opportunity to choose between rushing technologies and having more problems and waiting for the implementation when the risks won't be significant.