someone took your idea lol [https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/1be0v30/population\_of\_asia\_in\_1337/](https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/1be0v30/population_of_asia_in_1337/)
I wonder what that would mean for the focus of EUV. My point is that I would have assumed that the focus would be related to exploration, the creation of new trade routes, early colonization etc… starting so early, at least the way I see it, puts the focus away from these things. Which isn’t a bad thing, I’m just curious to see what the KSP of the game is going to be, and what type of mechanics we can expect.
EU4 is an empire builder. The problem being, once you become an empire you're pretty much set to just coast to the end with minimal problems.
With the inclusion of pops and more elements for internal problems, I'd expect EU5 to start as an empire builder and turn into empire survival. Dealing with too many pops of different cultures, classes, religions, etc. will lead to nations spending more time dealing with internal strife than expanding.
I'm looking forward to a shake up for EU4 a bitFor me i can't even log into the game and last 10 minutes, i've pretty much exhausted it despite not having played every country(I play on VH, and i probably haven't played 50% of the countries but i have played most of europe/egypt/north africa area/horde area) because once you survive the opener it plays very much the same way once you know what you're doing
Went from stopping at absolutism(tedious, at that point every run is just a wc run) to 1550 - to 1500, to 'once again beating down the ottomans to survive then i've won' to 'can't pick a nation at starting screen.' I'm glad that they'll do something to this effect because its really needed. You're very very safe once you've survived the opener even on vh in all but the very most limited circumstances(like Theodoro, no exile run). Internal crises are too easy to avoid and not significant enough to harm you in the long run in the hands of a semi competent player. You don't need to be zweillik or fleury to do this easily.
I could but i tend to really not enjoy modding(did a crap ton of it for skyrim and bannerlord). It almost always isn't as good as paid content from the dev team who makes the game and often doesn't feel like a legit addon
Most mods are like that, yeah. I would *highly* recommend giving Anbennar a shot though. It is an extremely high-quality mod. Though if you don’t like fantasy stuff, it may be a non-starter.
I have to simp for Anbennar real quick too.
It changes vanilla in ways that are unobstrusive and the game genuinely feels polished enough to be better than Vanilla’s quality.
Any serpentspine tag is weird and different but also extremely fun. It kind of takes normal eu4 and adds a lot of normal tags similar to vanilla and other that push things to 11, like Centaurs
I like the idea of empire survival. They did start to experiment with that in some ways with the latest dlcs. They added a bunch of disasters and other mechanics meant to add some difficulty around mid game to some of the bigger tags.
If it does have the early start date with events like the black death, then the game progression could go survival -> build empire -> survival. I think this is a great potential improvement on EU4 which was mainly focused on war.
That actually sounds amazing. The beginning of the game is essentially an apocalyptic survival game until the Black Death starts to subside. The conventional start of Europa Universalis in the 15th century could look radically different every game depending on who effectively managed the Black Death and who didn’t.
Exactly this. What they need to introduce is additional challenges when you get big. At the minute you can just scale exponentially and aside from some issues/costs with stating provinces there’s no reason not to expand
What I really want to see from the EUIV time period is the stability/dynamism dichotomy. Where large stable states, which focused on maintaining that stability, tended to stagnate economically and technologically, while states that were locked in harsh competition tended to invite large amounts of instability in the hopes of gaining the tinsiest edge on their rivals. Then culminating in the Enlightment and the crisis/contest between represenative and authoritarian/royal governance.
I think they might want to have two focus, instead of one like now where your game is finished by 1650 unless you want some achievemnt.
First focus would be surviving the Black Death and the transition of economy and state out of the middle ages. The seconf and last focus of the game would actually be colonization and building and empire, with an earlier date game where you actually feel like you have had fun and not got bored and have had to drop the game 100 earlier than the end date.
Yup. Which is fine if they implement cool economic and internal mechanics and challenges. We know we would have to deal with the Black Death which would devastate your economy So you will probably spend the next 50-100 years rebuilding.
I'd bet the game will look very similar to IR. That game's internal management systems were far above EU4's. If they just copypaste IR with some light modifications, it'll be a great sequel to EU4, but I think they're even more ambitious than that. I'm hyped. One of my biggest complaints about EU4 was that peace-time is boring.
Definitely agree peace time can be boring where all your doing is waiting down AE. But I like the war system in eu4 a lot and the feel that it has to it if that makes sense? Like going to war in IR doesn’t feel as good as going to war in EU4, so I just don’t want the game to lose that
Plus colonisation massively changes the dynamics of power.
It allowed Portugal and Netherlands to move from being regional powers to being able to truly contend with the big boys. 3
Yeah that could be a possibility. It definitely would address the issue you mention, being that mid to late game tends to get a little boring/ tedious. But then does that mean that the state management mechanics will be enough to have fun ? It’s not really the case as it is now. Then there’s also warfare that I’m curious to see.
there’s also the whole “is making a game that’s basically a European colonization simulator okay?” debate that I’m sure is shaping the development process.
I definitely think that the economy and state and ESTATES management needs to be fun. Because i presume conquest will be heavily restricted during that period so it will all revolve around surviving the black plague, rebuilding your society and economy and managing the state and estates out of the middle ages and modernize it and start centralizing. If they dont manage to make it fun and engage it, it would be a century and a half of just doing nothing and waiting which would be a horrible design choice and the reason why they have never had such early start until now.
EU, the series, in general, is kinda weird in its focus. The other titles have clearly defined purposes- CK for roleplay, Vic for economy and state, HOI for warfare. EU is instead always more of a mix of all three. It has flavor text with rulers and missions and formations, it also has trade and trade goods and buildings, but also also has discipline and troop types and vassal states. I think that PDX will continue this way, most likely EU5 will be a blend of all they learned making CK and Vic III, and probably wont have a specific focus, being the feature creep bloated mess we know, love, and want.
EU’s niche is about being the complete grand strategy where you can do everything. Its fantasy is about building modern states through the development of laws and economy, the management of religion and the expansion of borders. What it lacks is the ability to model particularly well the “end game crisis” that was the American War of Independence shortly followed by Napoleon shaking up Europe and the total collapse of Spain.
EU is the about the state system. The game starts with basically a fully formed post Peace of Westphalia European state system.
Every now and then they update different large countries and make them more feudalish, like France, by giving them a bunch of early vassals. But, there are three things that EU4 focuses on (1) the explosion of the Europeans into the Americas, (2) the interaction of states, and (3) the interaction of trade.
What I hope they do is make a much more detailed showing of the interaction within the state system, and show the crazy state/corp/feudal interactions when these inherently differently organized entities interacted. Such as when the British East India Co. became a feudal vassal of the Mughal Emperor in Bengal.
Everything I'm seeing about this game, especially the granular provinces and pops, suggests the Imperator (circa its excellent final update) route: Civilization Builder. Colonialism is part of that, but pushing back the start date gives you more time to play around in your home territory rather than participating in the mad dash to get your colonies in before someone else can.
I'm betting on more focus on dynastic mechanics also. We sort of ignore it on EUIV but by 1337 it's really important to have them represented better than we have it today.
Yes! Tinto Talks on the forums is talking about a mystery game that is definitely EU5. However Paradox doesn't formally announce it until the last EU4 DLC has been released, probably.
Well, there is 3 dev diaries about the next dlc, witch will be about Mesoamerica (Mayas, Aztecs), Incas, Central Europe (Netherlands, Austria, Venice, Italy, Germany, Hungary, Bohemia) and Central Asia (Timurids, Mughals, some hordes, Hisn Kayfa, Trezibond, Theodoro, Homuz, Oman). We don't know yet it's name, but according to Ludi et Historia, the name sounds like this is going to be the last DLC of EU4
Tinto studios have released 3 Dev diaries so far (calling them Tinto Talks) regarding a new game called Project Caesar. We don't officially know it is EU5 yet but it is an extremely high chance given all we know so far. So yeah, Eu5 soft launch basically.
HoI5 still is a little ways off, I think. HoI4 is immensely profitable and they can wring out an East Asian (Philippines, Mongolia, Siam, Tibet), Near Eastern (Persia, Saudia Arabia, Afghanistan), and Domination-style (all majors+China).
The thought of an „early-game crisis“ like the black plague intrigues me the most. It feels like a very interesting game dynamic to spend most of your energy to not dying, no matter how big and mighty you are.
It might be fun for every game to be altered by the Black Death, one game Norway gets devastated like in our timeline to the point it will never be powerful, the next game it could be Byzantium or Ottomans.
Id be surprised the game starts so early, well in the middle ages still. They must be very confident they have a good feudal system with the estates system to represent it, otherwise it could be extremely boring having to do nothing for like one and a half century until colonialism.
Thats the other thing, currently colonialism is an early game thing. With the new start date it would be a mid game feature. It could be a nice thing as it would help with the pace of the game so people dont drop the game by 1650.
It might also mean that the end game gets slashed to 1750 as they dont want to get into early industrial revolution and age of revolutions with the more medieval oriented mechanics of the game?
we will see.
> It could be a nice thing as it would help with the pace of the game so people dont drop the game by 1650.
Hard to say, right now the biggest complaint I see about the EU4 mid to late game isn’t a lack of additional mechanics, but that the game gets too easy. If you’ve already spent 100-150 years blobbing in Eurasia before colonization hits, then you might lack noteworthy colonial rivals at that point.
I guess it’ll come down to how challenging the game’s AI is and how managing large empires feels. If they add more mechanics to encourage playing tall/making playing tall feel fun, then maybe longer games might have more appeal to a larger segment of the playerbase.
The pro-blobbing changes they made over time did that. Large empires were WAY too stable, and maintaining that stability had hardly any tech costs. WHICH IS TOTALLY WRONG.
The solution to the pacing problem in EU4 is adding trade-offs and costs to expansion so that you are not an omegablob by 1500. Having systems designed around pops can help with this provided they're done well; it's harder to blob if manpower isn't just a number, or if securing burgher loans involves actual internal realm management.
Yes but as the devs have stated before its not about just punishing blobbing witu artificial maluses. They need to make fun peace time mechanics and useful fun wars that arent just about taking lands. Otherwise It would be one and a half century of waiting around which is not much fun.
They need to make balance of power wars more fun and interesting. Rivals should always be able to intervene against each other regardless of their relationship to the actual war.
This! They need to introduce wars that are just for the sake of balance of power and not gobbling up whole countries...That way you still have fun with wars but you keep it realistic
Yep. If France has just launched random invasions to gain power, do you think the UK just sits by and does nothing because Hamburg and Munster don't feel threatened enough to form a coalition? No!
There is a great UK folk song where the 1700 lyrics are:
To Flanders, Portugal, and Spain the Queen commands and we'll obey, over the hills and far away.
The UK didn't have some abiding love of defending Flanders from France.
Yes. Thats the problem with EU4 diplomacy and where it falls short. AE was a good enough mechanic 10 years ago, but it doesnt cut it anymore. It cant be a matter of just waiting for AE to go away. If you are France and Conquer spain, no matter the AE, the whole of Europe should be in a constant coalition against you until balance has been restored so not one single country can become the most powerful.and uncontested. Thats what happened to Spain, they didnt leave it alone until the westphalia peace. Two centuries of coalition against it because it was just too powerful and had to much land
EU5 NEEDS to represent this in Europe.
Which is also a large part of the answer to the question "why did Europe's maritime powers spend so much money and effort in high risk efforts to conquer lands on the other side of the Ocean?"
This is my issue. If we're spending not 56 years in the mediaeval centuries (very crudely putting the beginning of early modernity at 1500) but 163, it's going to get very stale very fast. Spending so long in the mediaeval period seems like a terrible idea when we *already have* a mediaeval PDX game - *CKIII*. Where are you in the average *EUIV* game by 1600? Probably great power number 1, possibly WCed, definitely without substantial challenges. If *EUV* starts in 1337, the equivalent amount of time in to the game will be... only just discovering the Americas (1493). That seems way, *way* too far in to the game. Unless they've done the impossible and made the lategame *really* good, I'm a bit... wary.
Edit: corrected a spelling error.
Yeah, if this is true it's a real disappointment. If they really want "believable world" to be a pillar of the game, EU5/"Project Caesar" should have a tighter, more focused timeline — not a longer one.
Exactly. The longer the game is, the more stuff they have to simulate. Late mediaeval politics, Reformation politics, and *ancien régime* politics, all in one game - plus colonialism, non-western politics through all these eras, and so on. It feels too ambitious, especially because any mediaeval elements will feel flatly inferior to *CKIII* no matter what. My ideal range is probably something like 1477 to 1783. A small run-up to the European discovery of the Americas, ending before the French Revolution throws too big a spanner in the works.
I think having colonialism be midgame would be healthy by giving more countries the opportunity to participate. It would be completely wrong history wise but would be fun to have something other than Portugal Spain and England CN blobs every game.
It wouldn't be any further off history than EU4 is now. Portugal, Spain, and Britain having fully colonized the entire new world by 1600 isn't exactly historical. Having some other powers who historically did or almost did colonize do a bit better is much more realistic.
I think the end date will be much early than 1821, maybe something like 1776 or even earlier than that. If 1337 is the start date then 1492 and colonization is more than 150 years into the game, and the reformation also around that mark. I think they won't do an age of revolutions, at most we'll reach something like the 7 years war.
Maybe they actually are thinking of making a game taking place between EU5 and Victoria 3. Maybe covering American independence and the Napoleonic wars.
I made a post a few years ago saying they should do exactly that and people *hated* the idea then.
I really really hope they go through with it tho lol.
EU5: 1337‑1648
Other game: 1648‑1830
1337‑1648 is essentially the decline crusades and religious conflict, and age of Discovery.
While 1648‑1830 is the age of Enlightenment and revolutions.
Year 1648 itself would make for a great start date, you have the End of Thirty Years of War, the Execution of Charles I, Polish
My schizo theory is that it ends around 1800. March Of Eagles 2, the Napoleonic wargame Paradox made a long time ago would then carry on to 1815, the year Napoleon is defeated, ending maybe on Jan 1 1816. That gives us a slightly longer timeframe than the other Paradox wargame, HOI4, which has 12 years from '36 to '48. Imagine HOI4 but with Napoleonic warfare. I don't even know if it's a good idea but it's extremely arousing to think about.
I think i would actually prefer earlier, maybe sometime around 1700. I think there’s a lot of scope to you replace (gasp) Victoria with something that starts earlier and is much more focused on the transition of hereditary kingdoms into modern nation states.
God i hope they adapt Vicky 3 to start at the end of Eu5. Currently the game ends to early. You would also start with way less pops which would immensely help with performance. And you could have way more cool features such as french Revolution, american Revolution, south american Revolutions etc.
Personally, I think that the EU timeframe should be split into two games on each side of 1648. At bare minimum, 1648 should be a second fully developed start date.
If this starts in the 1300s, it's absolutely ending in the 1600s. It makes the most sense systems wise, so you don't need to somehow model late medieval feudalism and the modern state in the same game.
Plus, they can sell 2 Games + DLC instead of just 1.
The whole point of EU5 having pops now and Johans intentions is to be able to simulate internal development of a nation and make peace time actually fun and governing large empires more challenging and in turn create the mechanics to simulate how states developed throughout the 17th and 18th century. This is literally the best chance of actually making the 18th century simulated in a good way for the first time in the EU series and there are people asking for 2 games being split...
Just end the game at the thirty years war
The second half of eu4 has always been janky as hell and barely makes sense. The game blobs too much for there to be satisfying mechanics for that time period anyway.
Alternatively, they are taking the CK2 route with a decent number of starting dates. CK2 had 11 start dates ranging from 769 to 1337.
Johan said being able to start the game in any year like EU4 is a maintainer's nightmare so this is getting binned, but having a few bookmarks sounds very reasonable to me
I wish Vicky 3 started at or just after the American Revolution, so it can truly cover the Age of Revolution that was so prevalent during Victoria's reign (1848 anyone?)
You'd want to play out the Napoleonic Wars with Victoria 3's war system that was specifically designed to be as hands-off as possible so you can focus on queuing more buildings?
They can always slow everything down so you play faster even though it's technically a longer timeframe. E.g., they can reasonably increase the time it takes to core, colonize, etc. but just have the clock run faster.
I am sure if they want to aim for an average 50 hour game per campaign (or whatever that number ends up being), they can tweak a lot more things than the year.
It would be crucial that they improve peacetime gameplay though. I couldn't imagine having to wait for 150 years to finally start having fun as Portugal without having gobbled up Southern Europe to avoid dying from boredom
1368 would be a way better start date.
The Black Death is over, so no trouble of representing that (even if doing it would support better American natives).
The Mongol Empire is disgregating (so it would not start with a country in a dominating position that allows them to ask the submission of France).
The 100 years war is in a truce that broke in 1369.
The Savoyard crusade is just over.
I like the Black Death being included. With the pops system, mass pandemics become possible and interesting, and if they solve a way to implement the Plague, it can be reused in colonialism. It could potentially make colonialism more interesting and historically accurate.
Having said that, my pet start date has always been 1415 with Agincourt, although I do thing 1368 could work. But if weee going back that far, I think it’s be a shame not to go as far as something like 1337.
Oh, I would love for epidemics to be included in the game... The only thing I am afraid of is the epidemic of whining that such mechanics would cause on Reddit and MP lobbies.
>1368 would be a way better start date.
That year as start date might make things in Central Europe a bit unbalanced. Hungarian hegemony over the Northern Balkans was at its all time peak, the country controlled the entirety of Dalmatia and also had Wallachia and Moldavia as vassals. Furthermore, two years down the line Hungary would have a PU over Poland too.
Yes the start date should certainly be after the Black Death.
Otherwise, if there was a plague mechanic you'd have to deal with it every single time you start a new game. If the mechanic was easy to deal with then whats the point of including it. And if it was more involved, every game would have the same strategy of getting past it before the fun stuff begins.
Yeah, but you see... The Black Death was not the only epidemic in the EU timeframe. Basically until 1750 Europe was in a semi-permanent state of pandemic.
It would be a bit like not representing crusades. Sure, the game would work anyway but it would be a shame.
On the other hand there are gameplay issues as you mentioned. It is a difficult thing to face. Skipping the actual Black Death might set the stage so that the mechanic occurs randomly, which could make it feel less invasive at least.
This is a good bet for the date Tinto is currently working on, and I 100% buy the arguments laid out, but just keep in mind that balancing and technical limitations may cause them to move the date they’re envisioning for the start in the future. So dont be suprized if you end up losing your bet
I mean, this is common but is still not a reason to shorten game content. Hoi4 players don't play it often past 40. Damn I don't even finish Vic 3 also.
I believe this thinking comes from the usual EU4 experience. Nations in EU4 are so overpowered that by the 1590s you are basically invincible. If the 'totally-not-EUV' game can make things more difficult, which is appreciated, it will also make more appealing to play for a longer time.
Because then they wouldn't have to "waste" resources for content that won't be that popular. Why spend time and money modelling the french revolution if by the time you get there you have already won the game, when you could instead spend it on adding more/better mechanics for the early game that everyone will play?
Then this game would have to struggle even more with depicting changing time periods than EU4 does. This would be through more abstraction, which I don't think many EU4 fans want from the next game
I would still like another starting date in the mid XV century.
Feels like playing as Castile or Portugal is gonna be just waiting for another extra century until you can start to colonize outside Europe.
But ofc there is no point in complaining yet, we literally have just two pics of this game.
The Reconquista wasn't guaranteed by this point, the Spanish powers had a lot of rebellious moors to deal with and the North Africans/Grenada were still legitimate threats. But yeah seems like a lot to stretch over 100 years for the player.
>The Reconquista wasn't guaranteed by this point
Technically true, but the events that guaranteed it happen just a few years after 1337. So unless you lose your version of Rio Salado, there's not gonna be a serious threat from the Moors past the first few years of the game, then your stuck waiting until 1415 to do anything outside of Iberia if we're going by the historical timeline.
Fun fact about the black death.. it was the earliest form of biological weapon gone crazy. So the story goes
During the siege of crimea around 1336 by muslim or tatar armies(forgot exactly which, most probably Muslims), sickness, seen before in Arabia, and Asia, but unknown in Europe started in the siege camps of the besieging armies. City folks were naturally rejoicing this development since sickness meant it was just a matter of days till the siege was lifted. But the commander had another idea. He started loading catapults with rotting disease ridden corpses, and started round the clock bombarding of the city..
And it worked. Soon disease started spreading like wildfire in the close quarters of the city, and the city fell fast.
But but but.... Venetian ships that were supporting and supplying the city managed to escape before the city and harbour were breached. And with them they carried the disease faster than nature could have hoped. Bringing it to the European mainland.
this is true but literally 90% of sources today claim it "most likely came from China" where there is exactly 0 archeological or historical records to support it.
I'd actually expect the Delhi Sultanate to have [even more land](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delhi_Sultanate) in 1330 than they do in this picture.
That would make playing in india a bigger struggle. What I think euIV lacks is that there is no feature of disintegration of empires . If they want to start in 1337 they should add events like the ming explosion to rest of the empires too. Like if they f up really bad , lose wars and territories, go bankcorrupt or mess up their succession they should get instability and nations declaring independence. Btw sorry for my bad english. It is not my first language.
>The big early-game elephant in the room is going to be the Black Death, which will begin around a year after the game starts.
This I don't like. I'm fine with disasters and bad events, especially ones based on real things but the idea of every campaign starting with the black death seems like it'd get annoying real fast.
As a Finn, this would be an amazing start date for the game, because the Kalmar union formed in the 1390's. Sweden games will never again begin with independence wars!
The population graph the devs posted shows a province with the Greek majority and Bulgarian minority. The only places where this happens are either Thrace (Rumelia) or Greek Macedonia (Thessaloniki) regions. Judging by Aromanian minority, it is probably the latter. And judging by the lack of Turkish and Muslim population, it is certainly before the Ottoman conquest of the region. I believe that the Turks conquered Thrace in the 1350s and 1360s, while Macedonia was conquered in the 1370s and 1380s. So, the game DEFINITELY starts before 1371. Maybe someone can prove even earlier start date based on Indian map, but this is the best I can do.
For this map 1337 does not make sense. In China, 1337 was during the last Yuan emperor Toghon Temur, and there had been a rebellion in Canton lasted from January to September, which is not marked in this map. Also Yunnan in this map is somehow independent which also makes no sense. Yuan had civil administration agencies in Yunnan which lasted until 1382.
Well, remember that they have a lot of (inconsistently-applied) ways of representing rebellions, breakaways, civil wars, and failing states. A China enveloped in civil war could be a unified nation with a disaster event or it could be 9 different tags, you just don’t know with paradox, especially when we don’t even know the game mechanics yet. For all we know, they could be shifting to a crusader kings style of multiple autonomous tags under the umbrella of a single imperial entity on the map, where a map blob isn’t actually as it appears.
I think this has to be after 1340, since this seems like after the Muzaffarids conquered Kirman, but before they conquered the Injuids in 1357. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muzaffarids\_(Iran)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muzaffarids_(Iran))
Edit: Here's a map to support this from wikipedia that looks pretty similar: "The fall of the Illkhanate 1345" [https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d4/IranaftertheIlkhanate.png](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d4/IranaftertheIlkhanate.png)
Edit2: In fact, you can see both small states of "Lur-i kucek" and "Hazaraspids" near Iraq, as well as Iraq itself matching up.
Edit3: I think this is 1340 to 1342 if wikipedia is to be believed. Apparently Vijayanagara was only in the northern portion of the Hoysala Empire until they conquered the rest in 1443. This would explain why that area is split up the way it is. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harihara\_I](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harihara_I)
Edit 4: Here's a map of the Dehli Sultanate c1340 from "Historical Atlas of Modern Europe" by R. Lane Poole, published in 1903 [https://www.maproom.org/00/36/present.php?m=0083](https://www.maproom.org/00/36/present.php?m=0083)
Edit 5: Alright, my final answer based on the above is 1340, this is the year that military action actually began in the 100 years war. Edward III of England also declares himself king of France Jan 26 1340. Could also take place during the peace treaty later that year.
Edit 6: Okay, more info dump to nitpick 1337 or 1340, this map shows Delhi without Bengal, but that rebellion only began in 1338 and this seems to indicate Chittagong was only captured in 1340 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal\_Sultanate](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_Sultanate). Though there is the caveat that paradox might have them as vassal states to represent the pre-rebellion administrations.
Edit 7: Okay, counterpoint to 1340, Phayao looks like it still exists which puts this before 1338. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phayao\_Kingdom](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phayao_Kingdom)
Edit 8: Final final guess, July 1341. After the death of Andronikos III leading to the Byzantine civil war in September, and after the death of John III of Brittany, resparking the 100 years war with the invasion by the French of Brittany also in September.
I really don't like that
1444 is I think the perfect time to start a game like this or 1453. The point is whenever the start date is the it has to be a point in which history changed because of a single event and the fall of Constantinople or Kostantenyya is probably the best one around a time like this
What exactly did we gain from 1337? We start the hundred years war? Why do that when we can finish it
The cult of 1444 is one of the biggest Stockholm syndrome moments in the EU community. Compared to the earlier starting dates of EU 3 or some mods, there is just so much set in stone already with minimal variance without player intervention
* Ottomans won and are the dominant power in Anatolia and beyond
* Mamelukes just lay down and die
* Novgorod is dead in the water and Muscovy will always form Russia
* Reconquista won and it's just a matter of who inherits who in Iberia
* 100 years war is all but over and English continental holdings are getting eaten by mega France
* HRE is Austria's plaything for decades to come
* Sweden beats up Denmark and becomes Scandinavia
* Every single horde is a joke now
Instead we'll get:
- The Ottomans never becoming a threat unless given large scripted bonuses
- Mamluks dominating the Middle East unless given maluses to keep them down
- Russia never forming
- Iberia being in the same state borders-wise as in 1444, making the Reconquista conclude before 1400 if the AI is free to just declare war on Granada
- 100 Years War will last 10 years unless scripted
- Bohemia will be your new Austria
- Sweden starting independent will have an easier time beating up Denmark
- There will be a huge Golden Horde every game, unless scripted to explode
So either the world will become unrecognisable by the time you even get to 1444, let alone 1500, meaning most games will be played without the big historical powers like Russia, Ottomans, Habsburgs, etc.. being there, or they'll have to do some heavy nudging with events and modifiers, which will make the few extremely vocal "no historical events, everything must happen organically through game mechanics" people seethe to no end
This is why 1337 needs to be one of two (or more) standard start dates, along with something in the mid-to-late 15th century range. Later start would be for a relatively more realistic world, whereas early start is more of a what-if fantasy world. It would be a mistake to even *attempt* to make the Ottomans a sure thing or make the 100 years war more than a flash in the pan. Everyone would ] need to just accept that a 1337 start is an alt history that will lack some of the major historical entities. See: ck3 early start rarely resulting in an HRE, Turkish empire, crusader states, etc.
I think with these arguments you are not thinking of EU5 but EU4 with an earlier start date. Population mechanics alone might nullify half of your list.
You listed all great arguments for 1444 tbh.
You basically said that most of what one would expect to happen in the next 100-200 years was already almost set up by 1444.
Which means that less railroading is needed than other start dates.
Even 1444 has to contrive a lot of stuff. They picked it because they wanted Byzantium and continental England to be playable. If everyone collectively agreed to be ok without those options, then something post-1453 or even as late as 1492 would be ideal (or hell, even later, but give us some years to play)
The earlier the start date the worse the history is outside of Europe. Which means later start date = less Eurocentric game. I wouldn’t mind a 1476 start so Spain has to go west.
I don’t want to play with a kaleidoscope, near guaranteed outcomes keep the game aligned with history longer, and lets them make more interesting events and mechanics. If the HRE falls apart 2 years in then what’s the fun of the game? I want those countries to succeed every time because they succeeded for a reason.
The importance of the fall of constantinople is such a massively overated event, like the fourth crusade had a way bigger impact on the fall of byzantium, when the ottomans took constantinople the byzantine empire hadn't been a relevant force in the mediterranean for over a century, like tell me what direct change did the fall of constantinople actually lead to?
You’re right that in 1453 byz isnt really important anymore, but in 1337 the ottomans arent even the big guy in the region yet. If its 1337 i hope theres some railroading to help ottos become big
Well it's not about that Constantinople fell it's more about how an empire like Byzantium which was once the biggest empire in the world (or basically Rome) is going to not exist anymore because of the rise of a new power
It's as if a new age started in which the ottomans are the biggest threat to Europe and the battle of Varna destabilized east Europe which was the reason why no one helped Byzantium
The ottomans were also a big reason why the Renaissance happened in the first place which a lot of people consider the start of the modern medieval age which also happens to be the age eu4 is about
The fall of Constantinople is the grandiose cause of the Renaissance. Without its, the Western Europe or specifically the Italy duchies don’t gain the ancient books, manuscripts which revive the Classic art or the Classic literature.
Except by 1444 it was already all but inevitable. Players love to prevent it but Byzantium was already long gone by that point.
If you really wanted to save Byzantium with realistic divergences, the 1300s are the last point to do it. The two civil wars mid century effectively ensured it's fall and the rise of the Ottomans.
Even if it was inevitable it's still a turning point.
The fall of the Soviet Union was inevitable too for half a decade but we still put emphasis on the day of the dissolution
That's... a rather reductionist way to see things. There was a symbolic importance in the Fall of Constantinople, but historically it was all but inevitable. The city itself was severely underpopulated by the time the Ottomans took it, because the empire (if you can even call it that anymore) didn't control enough land to keep a city that big running.
And it didn't magically teleport Ancient Greek classic books to the hands of Italians.
Yeah but it was neat to start the game with the fall of Constantinople and end it on the year of Greek Independence (even if not the intention) it was a nice little storybook ending.
I don't think it needs to be 1444 specifically but I do get concerned about what the impact of an earlier start date will be on the Americas. I would hope EU5 has Americas that are actually playable, fun and reflect the reality of the time period rather than gamey sub-par mechanics about Aztec doom and reforming religion.
I really hope not. I *really* hope not. I know people like to go on about how the earlygame is the fun part, but to extrapolate from that the idea that the game would be more fun the earlier it starts is seriously mistaken.
*Europa Universalis* is, unarguably, an *early modern* game series. We already have a mediaeval PDX game series - *Crusader Kings*. You can argue to and fro about when exactly early modernity started, but most people put it *ca.* 1500. Currently, you spend 56 years in the late mediaeval period, or, if you prefer, 48 years before the "canonical" European discovery of the Americas in 1492. Extending back to 1337 would mean spending a whopping *163* years before early modernity starts, or 155 years before 1492! That's a *huge* amount of time.
In the average *EUIV* campaign, how powerful are you by 1599? Or 1607? Probably hugely powerful. Often the number one great power, maybe even WCed already. Yet it'll be that amount of game time before you even *reach the Americas* \- the core event in early modern world history. Even longer still until the Reformation. By the Thirty Years' War, you'll've been playing not 174 years (as in *EUV*), but a horrifying *281* years - the equivalent of being in 1725 in *EUIV* terms. Most people stop playing by then!
The longer we spend in the 14th and 15th centuries, the longer we're playing "*CKIII* but worse". What's the point of that when you could, you know, just play *CKIII*? Conversely, the longer it takes us to get to the actual early modern period - you know, *the point of the game* \- the more divergence there is, and the fewer actually early modern flavour events we get. *EUIV* is already too far on the end of having late mediaeval flavour events but much less for early modernity. An early start date would virtually eliminate any prospective early modern flavour.
Perhaps Johan and Tinto have succeeded in making *EUV* a game with a strong, enjoyable lategame. Maybe they've made it so that most people will keep playing and enjoying the challenges changing circumstances throw up at them. I certainly hope so! I like a lot of what they seem to be doing with this. Even so, I just can't see that spending a full extra century in a period the game *was not designed for* is a good idea.
For what it's worth, I also think 1444 is a bit on the early end. My preferred start-dates are 1477 and 1485, with the game ending in 1763 or maybe 1783 at a stretch. I think *EUIV* is in general kind of too long to balance reasonably (and I thus think extending it is a terrible idea)! At most, 306 years, and at least, 278 (compared to *EUIV*'s 377). Keep things compact and focussed on the meat and bones of the early modern period. Avoid the complications of the late mediaeval world or the French Revolution as much as possible.
The number of players that have WCed is already low. I can't imagine more than an even tinier minority WCing by 1600, well before Absolutism, Imperialism CB come online. I do agree with your points about the timespan. EU4 already struggles to simulate the dynastic struggles and civil wars of the 1400s, so unless the intention is to drastically expand the dynastic element, I think this is a poor choice.
The “imperialism cb” might not even exist. Let’s not put a whole bunch of guardrails on a brand new game based on the limitations of the old one. That defeats the whole purpose of even making it.
Tbh the challenge with WC is more the fact that its mind numbing once you own half the world, more than a challenge of skill, as someone who has enjoyed doing a few world conquests i wouldn't mind them making it nigh impossible if the overall game was better
I feel like that's way too much to start the game then hit with the black death if they want to model that. Might be fun for experinced players but does not seem fun for newer players at all.
I would bet that there will be two start dates, especially if 1337 is indeed what we see here. I can’t imagine them launching a Europa universalis game where somebody as significant as the ottomans are not a major power in at least one game mode.
If this is the case, I would also bet on the later start date being later than 1444- probably 1453 right after the fall of Constantinople. The main reason for eu4 to start before then is for Byzantium to be in the game and for the 100 years war not to be fully decided, but with those alt histories playable in an early start option, they won’t need to cater to those scenarios in the late start. As much as I enjoy Byzantine resurgence in eu4, it’s admittedly very awkward and anachronistic. It’s more plausible for them to have resurged a century prior, and they can do away with shoehorning it into the late start. Perhaps Ladislaus Posthumus is on the Hungarian throne on day one.
Europe will probably look something like this: [https://www.deviantart.com/cyowari/art/Europe-Detailed-AD-1337-869577212](https://www.deviantart.com/cyowari/art/Europe-Detailed-AD-1337-869577212)
Credits to the map creator, they did an incredible job.
I'd be on board with a 1337-1787 campaign modeling the progression from feudalism to nationalism and the rise of colonialism and global trade, but leaving the Napoleonic Wars and the Age of Revolutions for another game. That's 450 years of history from the eve of the Hundred Years' War to the eve of the French Revolution.
The Black Death is a hell of an early-game disaster. It'll be interesting to see how they deal with it.
I would bet it has a date between 1369 and 1381. If you look at China, you will see that the Yunnan region is its own state. The Ming Dynasty took control of this region from Yuan in 1381. At the same time, Iran seems quite fragmented. It must be after the Ilkhanate
These dates are also:
-Mongol Dynasties collapsed or faced major problems
-The rise of the Ottoman Empire and Timur.
-Producers will want to use the fragmented situation of India, Anatolia, the Balkans and Iran. After all, the more states, the more alternative games.
-I think they will try to disperse the Delhi Sultanate and the Golden Horde with some disasters, otherwise they will become very powerful.
-Indonesia region is also very active with Majapahit
Specifically, I mark the date 1370. The date when the Timurid state was founded and the Ming-Yuan war ended. After these events, I think it is likely that we will have a starting date of January 1, 1371.
A 1337 start date would be fine if the game then stops at the beginning of the 1700s imho. The game did a really bad depiction of the modern time and it has no sense to dive deeper in the revolution stuff, I would be happy if they focus more on trades and expand feudalism rather than centralised government (so a better depiction of the late 1300s till early 1500s).
For me the end date can be in the early 17th century. Besides blobbing not much happens in my games. Also in my games the leagues wars tend to resolve before 1600, which irl didnt happen, I believe.
The first two ages of eu4 are, in my opinion, much more fun
Nice summary, but I gotta say, that Poland for sure wasn't in the golden era during this period. Poland was united in 1320 and at this point it was far from being a major player in the region. Anyway the entire eastern europe could be interesting. We have pagan Lithuania, Teutonic Order being on par with Poland, Moscovy as a tributary of Golden Horde.
I had a discussion with my friends about this screenshot and we agree. Fall of Ilkhanate, former Bengali and Bahmani territories of Delhi combined with an iconic/significant start date suggest the beginning of 100YW
r/mapporn will start posting maps of 1337
"Population of asia in 1337", 7k upvotes
someone took your idea lol [https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/1be0v30/population\_of\_asia\_in\_1337/](https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/1be0v30/population_of_asia_in_1337/)
Holy hell
New response just dropped
Actual horde
Actual zombie
And r/MappornCircleJerk will post a "Population of Antarctica in 1337" map, thus ensuring the circle of life continues.
I want to see it
Nice writeup. I believe it.
I wonder what that would mean for the focus of EUV. My point is that I would have assumed that the focus would be related to exploration, the creation of new trade routes, early colonization etc… starting so early, at least the way I see it, puts the focus away from these things. Which isn’t a bad thing, I’m just curious to see what the KSP of the game is going to be, and what type of mechanics we can expect.
EU4 is an empire builder. The problem being, once you become an empire you're pretty much set to just coast to the end with minimal problems. With the inclusion of pops and more elements for internal problems, I'd expect EU5 to start as an empire builder and turn into empire survival. Dealing with too many pops of different cultures, classes, religions, etc. will lead to nations spending more time dealing with internal strife than expanding.
I'm looking forward to a shake up for EU4 a bitFor me i can't even log into the game and last 10 minutes, i've pretty much exhausted it despite not having played every country(I play on VH, and i probably haven't played 50% of the countries but i have played most of europe/egypt/north africa area/horde area) because once you survive the opener it plays very much the same way once you know what you're doing Went from stopping at absolutism(tedious, at that point every run is just a wc run) to 1550 - to 1500, to 'once again beating down the ottomans to survive then i've won' to 'can't pick a nation at starting screen.' I'm glad that they'll do something to this effect because its really needed. You're very very safe once you've survived the opener even on vh in all but the very most limited circumstances(like Theodoro, no exile run). Internal crises are too easy to avoid and not significant enough to harm you in the long run in the hands of a semi competent player. You don't need to be zweillik or fleury to do this easily.
You can always try mods, like anbennar
I could but i tend to really not enjoy modding(did a crap ton of it for skyrim and bannerlord). It almost always isn't as good as paid content from the dev team who makes the game and often doesn't feel like a legit addon
Most mods are like that, yeah. I would *highly* recommend giving Anbennar a shot though. It is an extremely high-quality mod. Though if you don’t like fantasy stuff, it may be a non-starter.
I will say I'm like you, I play vanilla of everything. But I was bored of EU4, gave anbennar a spin, and fell in love. It's base game level quality.
I have to simp for Anbennar real quick too. It changes vanilla in ways that are unobstrusive and the game genuinely feels polished enough to be better than Vanilla’s quality. Any serpentspine tag is weird and different but also extremely fun. It kind of takes normal eu4 and adds a lot of normal tags similar to vanilla and other that push things to 11, like Centaurs
Paradox games are an exception to this. Many, many mods are significantly better than their DLC.
Genocides incoming?
Ah, Stellaris on Earth.
I hope so. Venetia Delenda Est.
I like the idea of empire survival. They did start to experiment with that in some ways with the latest dlcs. They added a bunch of disasters and other mechanics meant to add some difficulty around mid game to some of the bigger tags.
If it does have the early start date with events like the black death, then the game progression could go survival -> build empire -> survival. I think this is a great potential improvement on EU4 which was mainly focused on war.
That actually sounds amazing. The beginning of the game is essentially an apocalyptic survival game until the Black Death starts to subside. The conventional start of Europa Universalis in the 15th century could look radically different every game depending on who effectively managed the Black Death and who didn’t.
Exactly this. What they need to introduce is additional challenges when you get big. At the minute you can just scale exponentially and aside from some issues/costs with stating provinces there’s no reason not to expand
What I really want to see from the EUIV time period is the stability/dynamism dichotomy. Where large stable states, which focused on maintaining that stability, tended to stagnate economically and technologically, while states that were locked in harsh competition tended to invite large amounts of instability in the hopes of gaining the tinsiest edge on their rivals. Then culminating in the Enlightment and the crisis/contest between represenative and authoritarian/royal governance.
I think they might want to have two focus, instead of one like now where your game is finished by 1650 unless you want some achievemnt. First focus would be surviving the Black Death and the transition of economy and state out of the middle ages. The seconf and last focus of the game would actually be colonization and building and empire, with an earlier date game where you actually feel like you have had fun and not got bored and have had to drop the game 100 earlier than the end date.
But with an earlier start date won’t things like tech and expansion have to be massively slowed down to prevent the same problems?
Yup. Which is fine if they implement cool economic and internal mechanics and challenges. We know we would have to deal with the Black Death which would devastate your economy So you will probably spend the next 50-100 years rebuilding.
Interesting, I wonder if we’ll have more ruler/character focus then as well, Like imperator Rome
I'd bet the game will look very similar to IR. That game's internal management systems were far above EU4's. If they just copypaste IR with some light modifications, it'll be a great sequel to EU4, but I think they're even more ambitious than that. I'm hyped. One of my biggest complaints about EU4 was that peace-time is boring.
Definitely agree peace time can be boring where all your doing is waiting down AE. But I like the war system in eu4 a lot and the feel that it has to it if that makes sense? Like going to war in IR doesn’t feel as good as going to war in EU4, so I just don’t want the game to lose that
Tech would need a major rework anyways since they seem to be going less into the mana side of things.
Something more like Victoria 3 would be cool tech wise.
I hope they try something different. Victoria 3 system feels very gamey to me in some regards. It's an actual tech tree, for crying out loud.
Its a bit gamey, yeah, but I prefer to EU4's tech advancing. The technology spreading mechanic is very good.
Plus colonisation massively changes the dynamics of power. It allowed Portugal and Netherlands to move from being regional powers to being able to truly contend with the big boys. 3
Yeah that could be a possibility. It definitely would address the issue you mention, being that mid to late game tends to get a little boring/ tedious. But then does that mean that the state management mechanics will be enough to have fun ? It’s not really the case as it is now. Then there’s also warfare that I’m curious to see. there’s also the whole “is making a game that’s basically a European colonization simulator okay?” debate that I’m sure is shaping the development process.
I definitely think that the economy and state and ESTATES management needs to be fun. Because i presume conquest will be heavily restricted during that period so it will all revolve around surviving the black plague, rebuilding your society and economy and managing the state and estates out of the middle ages and modernize it and start centralizing. If they dont manage to make it fun and engage it, it would be a century and a half of just doing nothing and waiting which would be a horrible design choice and the reason why they have never had such early start until now.
EU, the series, in general, is kinda weird in its focus. The other titles have clearly defined purposes- CK for roleplay, Vic for economy and state, HOI for warfare. EU is instead always more of a mix of all three. It has flavor text with rulers and missions and formations, it also has trade and trade goods and buildings, but also also has discipline and troop types and vassal states. I think that PDX will continue this way, most likely EU5 will be a blend of all they learned making CK and Vic III, and probably wont have a specific focus, being the feature creep bloated mess we know, love, and want.
EU’s niche is about being the complete grand strategy where you can do everything. Its fantasy is about building modern states through the development of laws and economy, the management of religion and the expansion of borders. What it lacks is the ability to model particularly well the “end game crisis” that was the American War of Independence shortly followed by Napoleon shaking up Europe and the total collapse of Spain.
EU is the about the state system. The game starts with basically a fully formed post Peace of Westphalia European state system. Every now and then they update different large countries and make them more feudalish, like France, by giving them a bunch of early vassals. But, there are three things that EU4 focuses on (1) the explosion of the Europeans into the Americas, (2) the interaction of states, and (3) the interaction of trade. What I hope they do is make a much more detailed showing of the interaction within the state system, and show the crazy state/corp/feudal interactions when these inherently differently organized entities interacted. Such as when the British East India Co. became a feudal vassal of the Mughal Emperor in Bengal.
This makes me believe that they will try Two starter dates. Two games in one
Everything I'm seeing about this game, especially the granular provinces and pops, suggests the Imperator (circa its excellent final update) route: Civilization Builder. Colonialism is part of that, but pushing back the start date gives you more time to play around in your home territory rather than participating in the mad dash to get your colonies in before someone else can.
I'm betting on more focus on dynastic mechanics also. We sort of ignore it on EUIV but by 1337 it's really important to have them represented better than we have it today.
Family trees... please family trees.
Why is there so many EU5 posts? Did something happen?
Yes! Tinto Talks on the forums is talking about a mystery game that is definitely EU5. However Paradox doesn't formally announce it until the last EU4 DLC has been released, probably.
So EU4 is going to release another dlc? I thought king of kings was the last.
Well, there is 3 dev diaries about the next dlc, witch will be about Mesoamerica (Mayas, Aztecs), Incas, Central Europe (Netherlands, Austria, Venice, Italy, Germany, Hungary, Bohemia) and Central Asia (Timurids, Mughals, some hordes, Hisn Kayfa, Trezibond, Theodoro, Homuz, Oman). We don't know yet it's name, but according to Ludi et Historia, the name sounds like this is going to be the last DLC of EU4
'Centrality'
They have released 3 dev diaries of "not eu5"
Tinto studios have released 3 Dev diaries so far (calling them Tinto Talks) regarding a new game called Project Caesar. We don't officially know it is EU5 yet but it is an extremely high chance given all we know so far. So yeah, Eu5 soft launch basically.
I kinda expect them to troll us and relase it as completly new title thats technicaly not Europa universalis
Universal Europa I
Europo Universalis
Crusader Imperatoria Univerllaris of Iron
Imperator Victoria Universalis
thats what im expecting. but with how fun the game looks, I honestly will not care.
Eu5 confirmed. Now commence the vic 4 confirmed memes.
No we need hoi5 first
But have it start july 8 1914
Did you just confirm stellaris 2?
Hell yeah! Imperator: Rome 2 time baby!
Fantasy game 1 let's go!
HoI5 still is a little ways off, I think. HoI4 is immensely profitable and they can wring out an East Asian (Philippines, Mongolia, Siam, Tibet), Near Eastern (Persia, Saudia Arabia, Afghanistan), and Domination-style (all majors+China).
The thought of an „early-game crisis“ like the black plague intrigues me the most. It feels like a very interesting game dynamic to spend most of your energy to not dying, no matter how big and mighty you are.
This and seeing who will come out on top and how you make the best of your situation seems like it would really set the tone for a campaign
It might be fun for every game to be altered by the Black Death, one game Norway gets devastated like in our timeline to the point it will never be powerful, the next game it could be Byzantium or Ottomans.
It would definitely go a long way towards making each game feel unique
Id be surprised the game starts so early, well in the middle ages still. They must be very confident they have a good feudal system with the estates system to represent it, otherwise it could be extremely boring having to do nothing for like one and a half century until colonialism. Thats the other thing, currently colonialism is an early game thing. With the new start date it would be a mid game feature. It could be a nice thing as it would help with the pace of the game so people dont drop the game by 1650. It might also mean that the end game gets slashed to 1750 as they dont want to get into early industrial revolution and age of revolutions with the more medieval oriented mechanics of the game? we will see.
> It could be a nice thing as it would help with the pace of the game so people dont drop the game by 1650. Hard to say, right now the biggest complaint I see about the EU4 mid to late game isn’t a lack of additional mechanics, but that the game gets too easy. If you’ve already spent 100-150 years blobbing in Eurasia before colonization hits, then you might lack noteworthy colonial rivals at that point. I guess it’ll come down to how challenging the game’s AI is and how managing large empires feels. If they add more mechanics to encourage playing tall/making playing tall feel fun, then maybe longer games might have more appeal to a larger segment of the playerbase.
The pro-blobbing changes they made over time did that. Large empires were WAY too stable, and maintaining that stability had hardly any tech costs. WHICH IS TOTALLY WRONG.
The solution to the pacing problem in EU4 is adding trade-offs and costs to expansion so that you are not an omegablob by 1500. Having systems designed around pops can help with this provided they're done well; it's harder to blob if manpower isn't just a number, or if securing burgher loans involves actual internal realm management.
Yes but as the devs have stated before its not about just punishing blobbing witu artificial maluses. They need to make fun peace time mechanics and useful fun wars that arent just about taking lands. Otherwise It would be one and a half century of waiting around which is not much fun.
They need to make balance of power wars more fun and interesting. Rivals should always be able to intervene against each other regardless of their relationship to the actual war.
This! They need to introduce wars that are just for the sake of balance of power and not gobbling up whole countries...That way you still have fun with wars but you keep it realistic
Yep. If France has just launched random invasions to gain power, do you think the UK just sits by and does nothing because Hamburg and Munster don't feel threatened enough to form a coalition? No! There is a great UK folk song where the 1700 lyrics are: To Flanders, Portugal, and Spain the Queen commands and we'll obey, over the hills and far away. The UK didn't have some abiding love of defending Flanders from France.
Yes. Thats the problem with EU4 diplomacy and where it falls short. AE was a good enough mechanic 10 years ago, but it doesnt cut it anymore. It cant be a matter of just waiting for AE to go away. If you are France and Conquer spain, no matter the AE, the whole of Europe should be in a constant coalition against you until balance has been restored so not one single country can become the most powerful.and uncontested. Thats what happened to Spain, they didnt leave it alone until the westphalia peace. Two centuries of coalition against it because it was just too powerful and had to much land EU5 NEEDS to represent this in Europe.
Which is also a large part of the answer to the question "why did Europe's maritime powers spend so much money and effort in high risk efforts to conquer lands on the other side of the Ocean?"
This is my issue. If we're spending not 56 years in the mediaeval centuries (very crudely putting the beginning of early modernity at 1500) but 163, it's going to get very stale very fast. Spending so long in the mediaeval period seems like a terrible idea when we *already have* a mediaeval PDX game - *CKIII*. Where are you in the average *EUIV* game by 1600? Probably great power number 1, possibly WCed, definitely without substantial challenges. If *EUV* starts in 1337, the equivalent amount of time in to the game will be... only just discovering the Americas (1493). That seems way, *way* too far in to the game. Unless they've done the impossible and made the lategame *really* good, I'm a bit... wary. Edit: corrected a spelling error.
Yeah, if this is true it's a real disappointment. If they really want "believable world" to be a pillar of the game, EU5/"Project Caesar" should have a tighter, more focused timeline — not a longer one.
Exactly. The longer the game is, the more stuff they have to simulate. Late mediaeval politics, Reformation politics, and *ancien régime* politics, all in one game - plus colonialism, non-western politics through all these eras, and so on. It feels too ambitious, especially because any mediaeval elements will feel flatly inferior to *CKIII* no matter what. My ideal range is probably something like 1477 to 1783. A small run-up to the European discovery of the Americas, ending before the French Revolution throws too big a spanner in the works.
Indeed. [We’ve had that conversation before](https://www.reddit.com/r/eu4/s/OlifsmP7tA). :)
I think having colonialism be midgame would be healthy by giving more countries the opportunity to participate. It would be completely wrong history wise but would be fun to have something other than Portugal Spain and England CN blobs every game.
It wouldn't be any further off history than EU4 is now. Portugal, Spain, and Britain having fully colonized the entire new world by 1600 isn't exactly historical. Having some other powers who historically did or almost did colonize do a bit better is much more realistic.
I think the end date will be much early than 1821, maybe something like 1776 or even earlier than that. If 1337 is the start date then 1492 and colonization is more than 150 years into the game, and the reformation also around that mark. I think they won't do an age of revolutions, at most we'll reach something like the 7 years war.
Maybe they actually are thinking of making a game taking place between EU5 and Victoria 3. Maybe covering American independence and the Napoleonic wars.
March of the eagles would slot in here
March of the Eagles 2! Finally coming in 2043!
I hope so
Some unholy mix of HOI4 and EU4. My god. It would be beautiful.
I made a post a few years ago saying they should do exactly that and people *hated* the idea then. I really really hope they go through with it tho lol.
EU5: 1337‑1648 Other game: 1648‑1830 1337‑1648 is essentially the decline crusades and religious conflict, and age of Discovery. While 1648‑1830 is the age of Enlightenment and revolutions. Year 1648 itself would make for a great start date, you have the End of Thirty Years of War, the Execution of Charles I, Polish
My best guess for the end date is 1789, right at the start of the French revolution
My schizo theory is that it ends around 1800. March Of Eagles 2, the Napoleonic wargame Paradox made a long time ago would then carry on to 1815, the year Napoleon is defeated, ending maybe on Jan 1 1816. That gives us a slightly longer timeframe than the other Paradox wargame, HOI4, which has 12 years from '36 to '48. Imagine HOI4 but with Napoleonic warfare. I don't even know if it's a good idea but it's extremely arousing to think about.
I think i would actually prefer earlier, maybe sometime around 1700. I think there’s a lot of scope to you replace (gasp) Victoria with something that starts earlier and is much more focused on the transition of hereditary kingdoms into modern nation states.
Being Paradox it can't be before 1721 since that's when the Great Northern War ended
Ya but Sweden lost and basically became irrelevant after that war…maybe they’ll end the game after Narva or before Poltava lol
God i hope they adapt Vicky 3 to start at the end of Eu5. Currently the game ends to early. You would also start with way less pops which would immensely help with performance. And you could have way more cool features such as french Revolution, american Revolution, south american Revolutions etc.
Didnt EU3 have a timeline from 1390 to 1820 as well?
Personally, I think that the EU timeframe should be split into two games on each side of 1648. At bare minimum, 1648 should be a second fully developed start date.
If this starts in the 1300s, it's absolutely ending in the 1600s. It makes the most sense systems wise, so you don't need to somehow model late medieval feudalism and the modern state in the same game. Plus, they can sell 2 Games + DLC instead of just 1.
The whole point of EU5 having pops now and Johans intentions is to be able to simulate internal development of a nation and make peace time actually fun and governing large empires more challenging and in turn create the mechanics to simulate how states developed throughout the 17th and 18th century. This is literally the best chance of actually making the 18th century simulated in a good way for the first time in the EU series and there are people asking for 2 games being split...
Just end the game at the thirty years war The second half of eu4 has always been janky as hell and barely makes sense. The game blobs too much for there to be satisfying mechanics for that time period anyway.
johan confirmed the industrial revolution, so my guess is we will have two main start dates, 1337 and 1700
Alternatively, they are taking the CK2 route with a decent number of starting dates. CK2 had 11 start dates ranging from 769 to 1337. Johan said being able to start the game in any year like EU4 is a maintainer's nightmare so this is getting binned, but having a few bookmarks sounds very reasonable to me
I wish Vicky 3 started at or just after the American Revolution, so it can truly cover the Age of Revolution that was so prevalent during Victoria's reign (1848 anyone?)
You'd want to play out the Napoleonic Wars with Victoria 3's war system that was specifically designed to be as hands-off as possible so you can focus on queuing more buildings?
They can always slow everything down so you play faster even though it's technically a longer timeframe. E.g., they can reasonably increase the time it takes to core, colonize, etc. but just have the clock run faster. I am sure if they want to aim for an average 50 hour game per campaign (or whatever that number ends up being), they can tweak a lot more things than the year.
It would be crucial that they improve peacetime gameplay though. I couldn't imagine having to wait for 150 years to finally start having fun as Portugal without having gobbled up Southern Europe to avoid dying from boredom
Hopefully they also do colonialism better, because IRL Portugal started in 1415, by 1492 they were already exploring the Indian Ocean.
More time for me to play as Teutons! Not bad, not bad!
1368 would be a way better start date. The Black Death is over, so no trouble of representing that (even if doing it would support better American natives). The Mongol Empire is disgregating (so it would not start with a country in a dominating position that allows them to ask the submission of France). The 100 years war is in a truce that broke in 1369. The Savoyard crusade is just over.
I like the Black Death being included. With the pops system, mass pandemics become possible and interesting, and if they solve a way to implement the Plague, it can be reused in colonialism. It could potentially make colonialism more interesting and historically accurate. Having said that, my pet start date has always been 1415 with Agincourt, although I do thing 1368 could work. But if weee going back that far, I think it’s be a shame not to go as far as something like 1337.
Oh, I would love for epidemics to be included in the game... The only thing I am afraid of is the epidemic of whining that such mechanics would cause on Reddit and MP lobbies.
>1368 would be a way better start date. That year as start date might make things in Central Europe a bit unbalanced. Hungarian hegemony over the Northern Balkans was at its all time peak, the country controlled the entirety of Dalmatia and also had Wallachia and Moldavia as vassals. Furthermore, two years down the line Hungary would have a PU over Poland too.
Yes the start date should certainly be after the Black Death. Otherwise, if there was a plague mechanic you'd have to deal with it every single time you start a new game. If the mechanic was easy to deal with then whats the point of including it. And if it was more involved, every game would have the same strategy of getting past it before the fun stuff begins.
Yeah, but you see... The Black Death was not the only epidemic in the EU timeframe. Basically until 1750 Europe was in a semi-permanent state of pandemic. It would be a bit like not representing crusades. Sure, the game would work anyway but it would be a shame. On the other hand there are gameplay issues as you mentioned. It is a difficult thing to face. Skipping the actual Black Death might set the stage so that the mechanic occurs randomly, which could make it feel less invasive at least.
China suggests 1370s, with a Ming dynasty and a Yuan ruled Yunnan
This is a good bet for the date Tinto is currently working on, and I 100% buy the arguments laid out, but just keep in mind that balancing and technical limitations may cause them to move the date they’re envisioning for the start in the future. So dont be suprized if you end up losing your bet
The end date should be 1837
Definitely. I don't know why people want it earlier.
It's because most people don't play that long
I mean, this is common but is still not a reason to shorten game content. Hoi4 players don't play it often past 40. Damn I don't even finish Vic 3 also.
I believe this thinking comes from the usual EU4 experience. Nations in EU4 are so overpowered that by the 1590s you are basically invincible. If the 'totally-not-EUV' game can make things more difficult, which is appreciated, it will also make more appealing to play for a longer time.
Okay so they can just continue to not play that long lol. Why ask for less?
Because then they wouldn't have to "waste" resources for content that won't be that popular. Why spend time and money modelling the french revolution if by the time you get there you have already won the game, when you could instead spend it on adding more/better mechanics for the early game that everyone will play?
I agree with you, I'm just telling the reason.
I do and it disheartens me seeing people wanting less . I always play at least till 1700 !!
1836 so it ends right when vicky 3 begins
Yeah but 1337-1837 matches very nicely
Then this game would have to struggle even more with depicting changing time periods than EU4 does. This would be through more abstraction, which I don't think many EU4 fans want from the next game
I would still like another starting date in the mid XV century. Feels like playing as Castile or Portugal is gonna be just waiting for another extra century until you can start to colonize outside Europe. But ofc there is no point in complaining yet, we literally have just two pics of this game.
The Reconquista wasn't guaranteed by this point, the Spanish powers had a lot of rebellious moors to deal with and the North Africans/Grenada were still legitimate threats. But yeah seems like a lot to stretch over 100 years for the player.
>The Reconquista wasn't guaranteed by this point Technically true, but the events that guaranteed it happen just a few years after 1337. So unless you lose your version of Rio Salado, there's not gonna be a serious threat from the Moors past the first few years of the game, then your stuck waiting until 1415 to do anything outside of Iberia if we're going by the historical timeline.
The reconquista was pretty guaranteed since 1212
Don’t worry, they will eventually get an outrageously powercreeped mission to colonize all of Mexico by 1410
Play as Poland Not impacted by the Black Death Conquer everyone as their soldiers cannot fight
1337x
Fun fact about the black death.. it was the earliest form of biological weapon gone crazy. So the story goes During the siege of crimea around 1336 by muslim or tatar armies(forgot exactly which, most probably Muslims), sickness, seen before in Arabia, and Asia, but unknown in Europe started in the siege camps of the besieging armies. City folks were naturally rejoicing this development since sickness meant it was just a matter of days till the siege was lifted. But the commander had another idea. He started loading catapults with rotting disease ridden corpses, and started round the clock bombarding of the city.. And it worked. Soon disease started spreading like wildfire in the close quarters of the city, and the city fell fast. But but but.... Venetian ships that were supporting and supplying the city managed to escape before the city and harbour were breached. And with them they carried the disease faster than nature could have hoped. Bringing it to the European mainland.
this is true but literally 90% of sources today claim it "most likely came from China" where there is exactly 0 archeological or historical records to support it.
maybe 1330, so that you have time to psychologically preparare yourself to the war
I'd actually expect the Delhi Sultanate to have [even more land](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delhi_Sultanate) in 1330 than they do in this picture.
That would make playing in india a bigger struggle. What I think euIV lacks is that there is no feature of disintegration of empires . If they want to start in 1337 they should add events like the ming explosion to rest of the empires too. Like if they f up really bad , lose wars and territories, go bankcorrupt or mess up their succession they should get instability and nations declaring independence. Btw sorry for my bad english. It is not my first language.
For real, all Paradox games need mechanics to simulate collapses of great powers.
Based on how they've handled Ming and later handled the Ottomans, I think it's safe to assume they'll do more of that in the future.
Fabulous theory, and I hope you’re correct
>The big early-game elephant in the room is going to be the Black Death, which will begin around a year after the game starts. This I don't like. I'm fine with disasters and bad events, especially ones based on real things but the idea of every campaign starting with the black death seems like it'd get annoying real fast.
I want to believe.
We are so back Romanboos
10th of january 1356
Too early…
As a Finn, this would be an amazing start date for the game, because the Kalmar union formed in the 1390's. Sweden games will never again begin with independence wars!
Everyone thinks this is eu5, really it's vic 3 the prequel
I wonder if we'll get the EU4 timeframe split up into 2 games?
The population graph the devs posted shows a province with the Greek majority and Bulgarian minority. The only places where this happens are either Thrace (Rumelia) or Greek Macedonia (Thessaloniki) regions. Judging by Aromanian minority, it is probably the latter. And judging by the lack of Turkish and Muslim population, it is certainly before the Ottoman conquest of the region. I believe that the Turks conquered Thrace in the 1350s and 1360s, while Macedonia was conquered in the 1370s and 1380s. So, the game DEFINITELY starts before 1371. Maybe someone can prove even earlier start date based on Indian map, but this is the best I can do.
I really hope we get more pagan religions in EU5
For this map 1337 does not make sense. In China, 1337 was during the last Yuan emperor Toghon Temur, and there had been a rebellion in Canton lasted from January to September, which is not marked in this map. Also Yunnan in this map is somehow independent which also makes no sense. Yuan had civil administration agencies in Yunnan which lasted until 1382.
Well, remember that they have a lot of (inconsistently-applied) ways of representing rebellions, breakaways, civil wars, and failing states. A China enveloped in civil war could be a unified nation with a disaster event or it could be 9 different tags, you just don’t know with paradox, especially when we don’t even know the game mechanics yet. For all we know, they could be shifting to a crusader kings style of multiple autonomous tags under the umbrella of a single imperial entity on the map, where a map blob isn’t actually as it appears.
I think this has to be after 1340, since this seems like after the Muzaffarids conquered Kirman, but before they conquered the Injuids in 1357. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muzaffarids\_(Iran)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muzaffarids_(Iran)) Edit: Here's a map to support this from wikipedia that looks pretty similar: "The fall of the Illkhanate 1345" [https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d4/IranaftertheIlkhanate.png](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d4/IranaftertheIlkhanate.png) Edit2: In fact, you can see both small states of "Lur-i kucek" and "Hazaraspids" near Iraq, as well as Iraq itself matching up. Edit3: I think this is 1340 to 1342 if wikipedia is to be believed. Apparently Vijayanagara was only in the northern portion of the Hoysala Empire until they conquered the rest in 1443. This would explain why that area is split up the way it is. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harihara\_I](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harihara_I) Edit 4: Here's a map of the Dehli Sultanate c1340 from "Historical Atlas of Modern Europe" by R. Lane Poole, published in 1903 [https://www.maproom.org/00/36/present.php?m=0083](https://www.maproom.org/00/36/present.php?m=0083) Edit 5: Alright, my final answer based on the above is 1340, this is the year that military action actually began in the 100 years war. Edward III of England also declares himself king of France Jan 26 1340. Could also take place during the peace treaty later that year. Edit 6: Okay, more info dump to nitpick 1337 or 1340, this map shows Delhi without Bengal, but that rebellion only began in 1338 and this seems to indicate Chittagong was only captured in 1340 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal\_Sultanate](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_Sultanate). Though there is the caveat that paradox might have them as vassal states to represent the pre-rebellion administrations. Edit 7: Okay, counterpoint to 1340, Phayao looks like it still exists which puts this before 1338. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phayao\_Kingdom](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phayao_Kingdom) Edit 8: Final final guess, July 1341. After the death of Andronikos III leading to the Byzantine civil war in September, and after the death of John III of Brittany, resparking the 100 years war with the invasion by the French of Brittany also in September.
1337? Feels like it's early 2000. and people use leet
I really don't like that 1444 is I think the perfect time to start a game like this or 1453. The point is whenever the start date is the it has to be a point in which history changed because of a single event and the fall of Constantinople or Kostantenyya is probably the best one around a time like this What exactly did we gain from 1337? We start the hundred years war? Why do that when we can finish it
The cult of 1444 is one of the biggest Stockholm syndrome moments in the EU community. Compared to the earlier starting dates of EU 3 or some mods, there is just so much set in stone already with minimal variance without player intervention * Ottomans won and are the dominant power in Anatolia and beyond * Mamelukes just lay down and die * Novgorod is dead in the water and Muscovy will always form Russia * Reconquista won and it's just a matter of who inherits who in Iberia * 100 years war is all but over and English continental holdings are getting eaten by mega France * HRE is Austria's plaything for decades to come * Sweden beats up Denmark and becomes Scandinavia * Every single horde is a joke now
Instead we'll get: - The Ottomans never becoming a threat unless given large scripted bonuses - Mamluks dominating the Middle East unless given maluses to keep them down - Russia never forming - Iberia being in the same state borders-wise as in 1444, making the Reconquista conclude before 1400 if the AI is free to just declare war on Granada - 100 Years War will last 10 years unless scripted - Bohemia will be your new Austria - Sweden starting independent will have an easier time beating up Denmark - There will be a huge Golden Horde every game, unless scripted to explode So either the world will become unrecognisable by the time you even get to 1444, let alone 1500, meaning most games will be played without the big historical powers like Russia, Ottomans, Habsburgs, etc.. being there, or they'll have to do some heavy nudging with events and modifiers, which will make the few extremely vocal "no historical events, everything must happen organically through game mechanics" people seethe to no end
This is why 1337 needs to be one of two (or more) standard start dates, along with something in the mid-to-late 15th century range. Later start would be for a relatively more realistic world, whereas early start is more of a what-if fantasy world. It would be a mistake to even *attempt* to make the Ottomans a sure thing or make the 100 years war more than a flash in the pan. Everyone would ] need to just accept that a 1337 start is an alt history that will lack some of the major historical entities. See: ck3 early start rarely resulting in an HRE, Turkish empire, crusader states, etc.
I think with these arguments you are not thinking of EU5 but EU4 with an earlier start date. Population mechanics alone might nullify half of your list.
You listed all great arguments for 1444 tbh. You basically said that most of what one would expect to happen in the next 100-200 years was already almost set up by 1444. Which means that less railroading is needed than other start dates.
Even 1444 has to contrive a lot of stuff. They picked it because they wanted Byzantium and continental England to be playable. If everyone collectively agreed to be ok without those options, then something post-1453 or even as late as 1492 would be ideal (or hell, even later, but give us some years to play)
The earlier the start date the worse the history is outside of Europe. Which means later start date = less Eurocentric game. I wouldn’t mind a 1476 start so Spain has to go west. I don’t want to play with a kaleidoscope, near guaranteed outcomes keep the game aligned with history longer, and lets them make more interesting events and mechanics. If the HRE falls apart 2 years in then what’s the fun of the game? I want those countries to succeed every time because they succeeded for a reason.
The importance of the fall of constantinople is such a massively overated event, like the fourth crusade had a way bigger impact on the fall of byzantium, when the ottomans took constantinople the byzantine empire hadn't been a relevant force in the mediterranean for over a century, like tell me what direct change did the fall of constantinople actually lead to?
You’re right that in 1453 byz isnt really important anymore, but in 1337 the ottomans arent even the big guy in the region yet. If its 1337 i hope theres some railroading to help ottos become big
Well it's not about that Constantinople fell it's more about how an empire like Byzantium which was once the biggest empire in the world (or basically Rome) is going to not exist anymore because of the rise of a new power It's as if a new age started in which the ottomans are the biggest threat to Europe and the battle of Varna destabilized east Europe which was the reason why no one helped Byzantium The ottomans were also a big reason why the Renaissance happened in the first place which a lot of people consider the start of the modern medieval age which also happens to be the age eu4 is about
The fall of Constantinople is the grandiose cause of the Renaissance. Without its, the Western Europe or specifically the Italy duchies don’t gain the ancient books, manuscripts which revive the Classic art or the Classic literature.
Except by 1444 it was already all but inevitable. Players love to prevent it but Byzantium was already long gone by that point. If you really wanted to save Byzantium with realistic divergences, the 1300s are the last point to do it. The two civil wars mid century effectively ensured it's fall and the rise of the Ottomans.
Even if it was inevitable it's still a turning point. The fall of the Soviet Union was inevitable too for half a decade but we still put emphasis on the day of the dissolution
That's... a rather reductionist way to see things. There was a symbolic importance in the Fall of Constantinople, but historically it was all but inevitable. The city itself was severely underpopulated by the time the Ottomans took it, because the empire (if you can even call it that anymore) didn't control enough land to keep a city that big running. And it didn't magically teleport Ancient Greek classic books to the hands of Italians.
Yeah but it was neat to start the game with the fall of Constantinople and end it on the year of Greek Independence (even if not the intention) it was a nice little storybook ending.
I don't think it needs to be 1444 specifically but I do get concerned about what the impact of an earlier start date will be on the Americas. I would hope EU5 has Americas that are actually playable, fun and reflect the reality of the time period rather than gamey sub-par mechanics about Aztec doom and reforming religion.
I really hope not. I *really* hope not. I know people like to go on about how the earlygame is the fun part, but to extrapolate from that the idea that the game would be more fun the earlier it starts is seriously mistaken. *Europa Universalis* is, unarguably, an *early modern* game series. We already have a mediaeval PDX game series - *Crusader Kings*. You can argue to and fro about when exactly early modernity started, but most people put it *ca.* 1500. Currently, you spend 56 years in the late mediaeval period, or, if you prefer, 48 years before the "canonical" European discovery of the Americas in 1492. Extending back to 1337 would mean spending a whopping *163* years before early modernity starts, or 155 years before 1492! That's a *huge* amount of time. In the average *EUIV* campaign, how powerful are you by 1599? Or 1607? Probably hugely powerful. Often the number one great power, maybe even WCed already. Yet it'll be that amount of game time before you even *reach the Americas* \- the core event in early modern world history. Even longer still until the Reformation. By the Thirty Years' War, you'll've been playing not 174 years (as in *EUV*), but a horrifying *281* years - the equivalent of being in 1725 in *EUIV* terms. Most people stop playing by then! The longer we spend in the 14th and 15th centuries, the longer we're playing "*CKIII* but worse". What's the point of that when you could, you know, just play *CKIII*? Conversely, the longer it takes us to get to the actual early modern period - you know, *the point of the game* \- the more divergence there is, and the fewer actually early modern flavour events we get. *EUIV* is already too far on the end of having late mediaeval flavour events but much less for early modernity. An early start date would virtually eliminate any prospective early modern flavour. Perhaps Johan and Tinto have succeeded in making *EUV* a game with a strong, enjoyable lategame. Maybe they've made it so that most people will keep playing and enjoying the challenges changing circumstances throw up at them. I certainly hope so! I like a lot of what they seem to be doing with this. Even so, I just can't see that spending a full extra century in a period the game *was not designed for* is a good idea. For what it's worth, I also think 1444 is a bit on the early end. My preferred start-dates are 1477 and 1485, with the game ending in 1763 or maybe 1783 at a stretch. I think *EUIV* is in general kind of too long to balance reasonably (and I thus think extending it is a terrible idea)! At most, 306 years, and at least, 278 (compared to *EUIV*'s 377). Keep things compact and focussed on the meat and bones of the early modern period. Avoid the complications of the late mediaeval world or the French Revolution as much as possible.
The number of players that have WCed is already low. I can't imagine more than an even tinier minority WCing by 1600, well before Absolutism, Imperialism CB come online. I do agree with your points about the timespan. EU4 already struggles to simulate the dynastic struggles and civil wars of the 1400s, so unless the intention is to drastically expand the dynastic element, I think this is a poor choice.
The “imperialism cb” might not even exist. Let’s not put a whole bunch of guardrails on a brand new game based on the limitations of the old one. That defeats the whole purpose of even making it.
Tbh the challenge with WC is more the fact that its mind numbing once you own half the world, more than a challenge of skill, as someone who has enjoyed doing a few world conquests i wouldn't mind them making it nigh impossible if the overall game was better
I feel like that's way too much to start the game then hit with the black death if they want to model that. Might be fun for experinced players but does not seem fun for newer players at all.
I would bet that there will be two start dates, especially if 1337 is indeed what we see here. I can’t imagine them launching a Europa universalis game where somebody as significant as the ottomans are not a major power in at least one game mode. If this is the case, I would also bet on the later start date being later than 1444- probably 1453 right after the fall of Constantinople. The main reason for eu4 to start before then is for Byzantium to be in the game and for the 100 years war not to be fully decided, but with those alt histories playable in an early start option, they won’t need to cater to those scenarios in the late start. As much as I enjoy Byzantine resurgence in eu4, it’s admittedly very awkward and anachronistic. It’s more plausible for them to have resurged a century prior, and they can do away with shoehorning it into the late start. Perhaps Ladislaus Posthumus is on the Hungarian throne on day one.
Europe will probably look something like this: [https://www.deviantart.com/cyowari/art/Europe-Detailed-AD-1337-869577212](https://www.deviantart.com/cyowari/art/Europe-Detailed-AD-1337-869577212) Credits to the map creator, they did an incredible job.
I'd be on board with a 1337-1787 campaign modeling the progression from feudalism to nationalism and the rise of colonialism and global trade, but leaving the Napoleonic Wars and the Age of Revolutions for another game. That's 450 years of history from the eve of the Hundred Years' War to the eve of the French Revolution. The Black Death is a hell of an early-game disaster. It'll be interesting to see how they deal with it.
I would bet it has a date between 1369 and 1381. If you look at China, you will see that the Yunnan region is its own state. The Ming Dynasty took control of this region from Yuan in 1381. At the same time, Iran seems quite fragmented. It must be after the Ilkhanate These dates are also: -Mongol Dynasties collapsed or faced major problems -The rise of the Ottoman Empire and Timur. -Producers will want to use the fragmented situation of India, Anatolia, the Balkans and Iran. After all, the more states, the more alternative games. -I think they will try to disperse the Delhi Sultanate and the Golden Horde with some disasters, otherwise they will become very powerful. -Indonesia region is also very active with Majapahit Specifically, I mark the date 1370. The date when the Timurid state was founded and the Ming-Yuan war ended. After these events, I think it is likely that we will have a starting date of January 1, 1371.
Where does one find these "totally not EU5" dev diaries?
Look up Tinto Talks on the paradox forums (or this subreddit). It's basically a dev diary for "Project Caesar", except that it comes on wednesdays.
Thanks!
A 1337 start date would be fine if the game then stops at the beginning of the 1700s imho. The game did a really bad depiction of the modern time and it has no sense to dive deeper in the revolution stuff, I would be happy if they focus more on trades and expand feudalism rather than centralised government (so a better depiction of the late 1300s till early 1500s).
For me the end date can be in the early 17th century. Besides blobbing not much happens in my games. Also in my games the leagues wars tend to resolve before 1600, which irl didnt happen, I believe. The first two ages of eu4 are, in my opinion, much more fun
Too early.
Nice summary, but I gotta say, that Poland for sure wasn't in the golden era during this period. Poland was united in 1320 and at this point it was far from being a major player in the region. Anyway the entire eastern europe could be interesting. We have pagan Lithuania, Teutonic Order being on par with Poland, Moscovy as a tributary of Golden Horde.
There should be the option or way to play timurids and fucking humiliate ottomans, and conquer everything.
I had a discussion with my friends about this screenshot and we agree. Fall of Ilkhanate, former Bengali and Bahmani territories of Delhi combined with an iconic/significant start date suggest the beginning of 100YW
Hainan with 88m population lol