With Industrialization being a theme of the next DLC, should end date be extended?

[Xetfield]

However, if we want to shift end date, there must be at least 1 new technology level with something significant content for all of three branches.

 

[Hairy @$$]

Also, something very important would make it in to the game if we were to move the cutoff date to 1836: Belgium!

Jokes aside, apart from the fact that it somewhat bothers me that there’s a gap between eu4 and vic2, I don’t think it is the most urgent problem we have on our hands right now. And would a significant enough portion of the playerbase play all the way to 1836? Barely anyone plays a game to 1821 already, 15 more agonizing years of boredom might not necessarily be a good thing.

 

[TenshiN]

Please no. Majority of players doesn't play their games past-1600's or past-1700's as it already turns into "Player is massive and noone is a challenge" game, where you have nothing to do, besides blob some more, making most game mechanics irrelevant just because you alone have more troops than most of the world's nations combined.

Start dates? Also no, no amount of work will save it IMO. There's that problem called "idea groups". Like, if you start somewhere in 1550's, you will have some idea groups selected, with ideas being unlocked. Some of those idea choices are terrible. I remember some japanese tags had "espionage" picked as their first idea group some time before. Besides being something you would not ever choose, it gives additional penalties to nations with "wrong" idea groups, compared to those that got the "right" ones. Also, no way to view what ideagroups did the nation pick before actually starting the game. It also leaves you with even less choice and player agency, since some ideagroups got picked already. Not much flavor in that.

 

[Zalmoxis]

Please no. Majority of players doesn't play their games past-1600's or past-1700's as it already turns into "Player is massive and noone is a challenge" game, where you have nothing to do, besides blob some more, making most game mechanics irrelevant just because you alone have more troops than most of the world's nations combined.

But if they revamp the revolution in some way like I suggested, then being a big blob might have a lot of things to worry about late-game. Just maybe.

 

[Xetfield]

I'm ready to play all the games to the end

 

[CosmicChronos]

So it seems like most of the discussion around here is how to solve the problem of boring late-games.
After the maybe the 16th century some of the core eu4 mechanics such as Sieging SHOULD become less important, as wars were largely fought by battles and not sieges. In my opinion, to fix this it would be ideal to fix this by adjusting the war score gained from battles and sieges with time, so maybe every 50 or so years, make sieges impact the war score x times less, whilst battles give you y more warscore.
To prevent late game blobbing, you could basically implement a similar system, except with AE, since as more time went by, expanding in the world grew less and less accepted, especially in Europe, as the only ways for powers such as France, GB and Spain to expand was thru colonizing. So, if the AE you take by conquering provinces could be increased, and/or the AE threshold for nations to join a coalition be reduced, super easy late games could be avoided.

 

[Stenen Jan]

So it seems like most of the discussion around here is how to solve the problem of boring late-games.
After the maybe the 16th century some of the core eu4 mechanics such as Sieging SHOULD become less important, as wars were largely fought by battles and not sieges. In my opinion, to fix this it would be ideal to fix this by adjusting the war score gained from battles and sieges with time, so maybe every 50 or so years, make sieges impact the war score x times less, whilst battles give you y more warscore.
To prevent late game blobbing, you could basically implement a similar system, except with AE, since as more time went by, expanding in the world grew less and less accepted, especially in Europe, as the only ways for powers such as France, GB and Spain to expand was thru colonizing. So, if the AE you take by conquering provinces could be increased, and/or the AE threshold for nations to join a coalition be reduced, super easy late games could be avoided.

The problem with this is the current mechanics are set up to have the exact opposite effect. In the late 18th century you're able to take much bigger chunks of Europe with every war due to increased administrative efficiency. This is to be able to simulate the Napoleonic land grabs and redrawing of the map.

In regards to the original topic, I think anything short of some major rework of core mechanics will not do anything to make the late game interesting due to the near infinite amounts of money and manpower any competent human player will have by then. After around 1650 or so, most players are almost invincible and the challenge totally disappears. That, coupled with poor optimisation means I rarely play that far into the 1700s unless I'm achievement hunting.

Paradox should focus on solving the money issue and making the midgame more challenging before focusing on the late 18th century.

 

[CosmicChronos]

The problem with this is the current mechanics are set up to have the exact opposite effect. In the late 18th century you're able to take much bigger chunks of Europe with every war due to increased administrative efficiency. This is to be able to simulate the Napoleonic land grabs and redrawing of the map.

Fair enough

 

[Metz]

If internal politics, demographics, and an advanced system of development were introduced then players would have more to do than just wage war. Provinces shouldn’t just be one culture, have one trade good, and a single religion. They should be represented by shifting % on pie charts like trade power. Same with estates on the provincial level.

Another issue is that you can literall develop a backwater province into a metropolis overnight if you have the monarch points for it. It should take a year in time per development level to do so.

There could also be court factions for monarchies and major parties for republics.

Court factions: loyalists, zealots, pragmatists, gloryhounds, etc. Similar attitudes and drives to the ones in CK2.

Republic factions: conservatives, liberals, religious.

Republican factions appear and evolve with time based on eras and technology level. Originally the two main factions should be those in favor of centralization of power and those in favor of decentralization.

 

[macd21]

I think when you get down to it there’s no point talking about extending the timeline when the end game is already problematic. Focus on improving the years we already have to play with rather than adding a couple of years that most people won’t play with anyway

 

[ZomgK3tchup]

So you're suggesting ending EU4 in 1789 and replacing it with nothing? That also seems like a bad idea to me.

Show me exactly where I said the game should end in 1789. I said I think 1789 is a better end date, not that I think it should be the end date. The distinction is that there are already mechanics and events written for 1789 and beyond; making 1789 the end date would remove content from the game.

My opinion is that that the game poorly simulates Napoleonic warfare and independence movements, and that, by extension, everything after 1789 is poorly simulated. I never said that I wanted to remove content.

So @Nyrael wasn't being "cyclical" in his reasoning.

I still don't know what you're trying to say. Please stop trying to be witty and just make your point.

Start dates? Also no, no amount of work will save it IMO. There's that problem called "idea groups". Like, if you start somewhere in 1550's, you will have some idea groups selected, with ideas being unlocked. Some of those idea choices are terrible. I remember some japanese tags had "espionage" picked as their first idea group some time before. Besides being something you would not ever choose, it gives additional penalties to nations with "wrong" idea groups, compared to those that got the "right" ones. Also, no way to view what ideagroups did the nation pick before actually starting the game. It also leaves you with even less choice and player agency, since some ideagroups got picked already. Not much flavor in that.

Idea groups being unbalanced is a problem with idea groups, not the later start dates.

Also, less choice isn't necessarily a bad thing. The whole point of some of the later bookmarks is that you're thrown into the middle of a conflict or a rivalry. If you choose the 1492 start date, for example, you don't get to choose who founds Spain or who inherits Burgundy, but that's... kind of the point. You would play it because you want the historical setup with Austria, Spain, and the House of Habsburg, not because you want to craft Spain to your exact specifications.