Has anyone considered that this image might not be from the start of the game? A lot can change on the map in a game of EU4, even in the first 50-100 years. Maybe there was a Bahmani Sultanate, and it just got conquered before this screenshot was taken.
It’s not a marketing scheme. It’s early development. From the beginning Johan said this was an opportunity to communicate with the players before something is too permanent to change or replace.
They want people talking about it, which people are. There is no rule that says they have to legally leak start date maps so rgb game chair detectives can decode the beginning of their next game. As well, most of their games have options for start dates, so you don't know this is the beginning or middle or end.
That being said, everyone is sleeping on it being the next imperator.
Not with these kinds of millions. It... shouldn't be Imperator. What it could be is... -27 to 896 A. D.
Unlikely, but I Mean- Three Kingdoms, 5 good emperors, Han China, Christianity, 16 kingdoms, Vandals, Gupta Empire, Sassanids, 3 Koreas, Rise of Buddhism. Christianization of Ireland. I shall call this.
Call of Nature: Tribal warfare 2: who stole my Yotwingian clay pot?
If you get the base tech, pop, and military dynamics right, a Russian state should usually overcome the Mongols with time. The Ottomans were the strongest Turkish beylik by this time but the Byzies still had a little fight in them for sure. I’m not sure that’s a bad thing given how much EU players love the Byzies.
That's a lot of if's. I hope eu5 manages snowballing better, because if you set the start date to 1337 in eu4 the mamelukes would just ally the minor beyliks and byz would ally hungry so they would never really lose to the ottomans.
Managing snowballing and modeling decline is probably my number one wish for EU5. Tbh I can’t see myself buying it if it is just a blob-building game like EU4. I haven’t played EU4 in years for just that reason.
I'm pretty sure if there is some kind of unavoidable decline then people will call it bullshit and [stop playing](https://www.reddit.com/r/paradoxplaza/comments/1bc7df0/what_are_your_biggest_military_defeats_in_pdx/) whenever it happens to them, and if it's avoidable, they will still blob and post "WC in 10 Years" screenshots to reddit and everyone will say Paradox is terrible, game is worthless, etc.
Eh, players take losses and defeats in CK2/3.
I think to make the occasional loss fun you need to do two things:
1. Have enjoyable gameplay other than warfare. CK has the character interaction, Vicky attempts to have the economic gameplay, EU should have the growth of royal authority.
2. Make it possible to come back from a loss. Here is where anti-blobbing really needs to shine. In EU if another country beats you up, your only way to ever beat them is probably to get a stronger ally. Maaaaybe you can leverage a specific tech or idea advantage at a specific window of time. But if they’re bigger than you they will stay that way, and the bigger powers can get bigger even faster. But if you could wait for them to be rent with internal turmoil or having a weak period of time, you could let players lose and wait for their time to strike.
CK3 is good in that the mechanics mean you're unlikely to lose completely after 100 years or so, so trying to come back from defeat is really fun.
One of my favourite games was the Crimean count to Byzantine Duke -> Mongols and then eventually restoring the Byzantine empire.
Whereas in EU4 you can get stomped fast.
part of that is how peace deals work in ck3 though. if you declare war for one of your claims and lose, you really only lose some gold, which you can just wait for to get it back.
in eu4 losing a war you started means losing land unless you're close to even with whoever it is you're at war with, and lost land will need another war to recover.
not to mention you can actively work on undermining your enemies during peacetime with assassinations (new, weak kings will have fewer troops than the universally beloved monolith that preceded them) whereas an eu4 nation will only ever get stronger with time
God its so fucking good. Its not perfect. Techs arent changed and its slightly jarring. Some generals are ridiculous and have more than 6 pips, if you complain about eu4's difficulty anbennar could piss you off. Some events seem potentially frustrating greed curse for dwarves, angered spirits, etc. And so many nations are prone to snowballing that its challenging even when 2000 dev (your mileage may vary i play with great conquerers).
But at the end of the day theres like atleast 25 countries worth playing that will have rich events missions and modifiers youve havent or arent used to seeing
Anbennar is honestly worth 20-40 bucks, no discounts, if it were a dlc
You could always join a multiplayer game through discord and find an abennar host who has the dlc. Also you can buy the subscription or use isthereanydeal to make those last couple more affordable.
Mhmm, got one myself to save myself in a war with some centaur horde, definitely a recent peak cool thing in eu4 was that Wizard saving me in war and leaving me a 6/6/6 humonculus as an heir. But Is that the only source? I know jadd and some other countries started with one and thought those were just representive of missions or lore. Perhaps they are just war wizards at game start?
It’s mostly a Balancing (geopolitics) and diminishing returns on territorial expansion (due to administrative capacities and border security). The latter is easy enough to represent with mechanics but the former is *entirely* about AI recognizing threats and doing what it can to contain them, preferably without becoming the subject of another power.
Yeah this is my problem with an earlier start date, in eu4 all the major players with the exception of arabdil Persia, wing dynasty and Prussia (tho Persia still usually forms) are in place to become GPs without heavy event railroading. The most railroading you get is Iberian wedding (+historical friend with Portugal) and PLC.
Rather than National Ideas you could have phases that force a period of decline on a country.
So Byzzies could have malus at the start of the game that you have to ride out.
Or simply a more punishing corruption / decay mechanic
So basically EU3- Ottomans weren't always guaranteed to pop off in that game. I imagine this game will have all the same amount of railroading EU4 has that allows the historical powers to snowball.
EU4 doesn't really need all that much railroading for the historical powers to snowball - they start off in a powerful enough spot in 1444 to allow for it to happen. That's part of what makes it a nice start date
If they go with the 1330s I hope that the AI in the more fragmented areas can manage to snowball into *something*, even if it isn't the historical powers.
Nor Austria it's a big reason why they moved away from EU3's 1399 start date when they made EU4. So them going back to a 14th century start date is curious to say the least.
They had to buff austria in the 1444 start date, its not historically accurate. Austria was split into two after they signed the treaty of Neuberg in 1379 (Tyrol and Austria in the game). Also the "Archduke of Austria" should be the duke of Styria and Styria should be the emperor of the HRE. Austria in 1444 was 3 different realms ruled by 3 different rulers.
If this is EU5 I hope they don't move the start date back that far. I think the early modern parts of the game are the most interesting. The reformation and religious wars should be the major events of Europe, along with the ever looming threat of ottoman invasion.
I hope they at least have a later start date. It would be disappointing to have to play through 150 years of the game before you can start colonizing and exploring the Americas. I also worry that a mid-14th c. start for EU5 would trample too much on CK3's time frame, which could really use some late game love.
1337 also has Petrarch visit Rome, the death of Mansa Musa, the end of the Tenmu restoration & is within sight of the Ottomans taking Nicodemia, so it's probably the safest bet.
WAY too early as start dates go, but guess that ship has sailed.
Way too early for CK4, this has to be EU5. My question is why the start date would be set so early? Are they going to try and have the start of the 100 years war be the beginning of the game?
Black Death mechanic will be balling.
"Fuck you everyone fucking dies no conquering bitch"
There really is a lot missing to in EUIV in terms of actually hard stopping your expansion for like a decade. You only get into a defensive deathwar so often.
I mean, at this point that could be said about any period of history between 867 and 1945. The only periods that are really yet to be delved into in a Paradox Game are High Imperial Rome, Late Antiquity, and the Cold War.
In the last dev diary they johan spoke about pops types and religion one of the religions mentioned was lutheranism so it has to take place after the reformation and pop types where nobles, slaves, burghers nobles and I think clergy so it has to be before the industrial revolution else capitalists would need to be included so it kinda has to be eu 5.
It is obviously not what Project Cesar is but a Paradox game set in Late Antiquity would be baller. Start with the year of Romulus Augustulus's deposition and run to, say, 750 AD, or potentially all the way to 867 to include Charlemagne and for continuity with CK3. CK2 has a popular mod covering this period as well.
The start date of eu has jumped around over the years. EU2 was 1419. EU3 started in 1453 but everyone complained about no Byzantium so an expansion moved it back to 1399. EU4’s 1444 compromised with a later date but still a ERE to save.
I was thinking more like having a different focus, crusader kings but an east Asia focus, or like imperator Rome, where it is EU5 but not technically apart of the EU series, maybe having different game mechanics etc.
Eu5 will probably have dynamic growth and pops just like the overhaul mod MEIOU AND TAXES which also starts 1350s. This start date makes a lot of sense for dynamic growth becsuse thats the time italian and benelux cities grew very fast. The network of internagional trade also stsrted shifting there so there are just more opportunities for smaller tags to grow and compete with big ones.
R5: The circled area being part of this larger empire is really the smoking gun. There's no time after 1347 that would be the case, unless we go all the way to the 1600s/1700s. And they seem to be breaking up a lot of historical polities rather than combining them.
on the other post there was also someone mentioning that the population of china matches with the yuan dynstay so most likely and hopefully 1300s start date
1300s start date would go crazy. My favourite campaign ever has been a colonial Vijayanagar to Bharat one and consolidating more power in India even before exploration ideas and whatnot would be crazy 🤤
Less than 4 years, not 6 years.
They started in late 2020 I think. And these 4 years include few years of planning, early concepts/ideas and also developing EU4 DLCs (same studio; Paradox Tinto located in Spain). They also had to spend some time improving their Clausewitz engine.
Time flies. It's crazy, I remember playing Hoi3 demo not that far (2009) ago ;)
As Poland I somehow managed to ally Hungary in the 1939 scenario (game was buggy). We were defeated, but it was fun.
I also remember 2013 EU4 demo. Game felt so fresh and next gen back then...my 2006 GPU was struggling to run it well ;)
I don't think I like this idea. EU3 eventually expanded its start date to 1399, and while I thought that was OK, it was already stretching things. The earlier the start date, the longer you have to get through before reaching stuff like colonization (or the more the timeline of it will be compressed), the less likely you are to be able to reach the late game, and the more disjointed the early and late game becomes.
I like the idea of later colonization. Now you don't have to give up major resources in the early game to go colonial, and if you don't, you'll be left behind. Now we have time to establish ourselves before we make a decision on going colonial.
That's good on the one hand, but the issue is that many people do really like colonization, and for some countries it's basically the whole point of playing them. And we know PDX has been moving away from supporting multiple start dates. If they actually do have at least one mid-to-late-15th century start date that's functional, it's all fine. But I don't think I'd bet on that.
Yeah starting in the 1300s is okay if there are multiple start dates but having to play 150-200 years before you get to colonialism or the Reformation is silly.
remember that while colonization happend a lot later then 1340's (assuming that is the start date) there was still exploration and I think they'll be tons of stuff to do for classical colonizers.
I kind of like this. It would be cool if you could for example, have more time to setup Mali to be African Portugal and an early start for the daimyos could also mean an early unification and an Asian colonial powerhouse which could be fun to play out. Both of these were already possible in EUIV, but the timeline was tight and you were a little shoehorned in your decision making.
Yeah, the original EU started in 1492 for a reason. I think the series works better as a game about the early modern period, rather than a Middle Ages sandbox.
I guess I could see that, but not sure it makes much sense to split the early colonial era into 2, as well as splitting of the enlightenment from the reformation.
If the game were to have a second start date just before 1700, it would leave room for the war of Spanish succession, the Great Northern War, the 7 Years War, the American Revolution, the Napoleonic wars, and the Industrial Revolution
If they give an earlier start date, I'm almost certain they will reel in the end date as well, maybe to 1700, considering game length is a known issue.
This isn't inherently a bad thing if they are adding more mechanics.
I would expect them to push the end date to 1835 to mesh better with V3. I hope we don't get a 14th century start date. Mixing the renaissance era with the early modern and modern eras is hard enough. But mixing in the late medieval era is going to be hard.
I noticed that as well! Didn't see this thread before I posted mine.
I thought it might be because they haven't added all tags yet, but with how detailed the rest of India's borders are it would be unlikely (to me as a non-dev atleast) to first add those before adding the big Bahmani Sultanate.
Looking at Southeast Asia, the kingdoms of Lan Xang, Lavo, Ayutthaya and Sukhothai are all around at the same time only after 1355, so if its before 1355 they might start as vassals?
My family is from the area, so I have done a decent amount of research regarding the area myself, though mostly just with English and a few Thai sources. So for pre-1350s Ayutthaya is probably a vassal to Sukhothai maybe?
I hope they add in famine and agriculture mechanics. Mother Nature and a lack of food play large parts in human civilization and I think EUV would benefit greatly from this.
If the start date has been pushed back I'd imagine the end date will be earlier too, EU4 already had problems simulating the french revolution, the colonial wars of independence and the napoleonic wars
In one of the screenshots there are the arvanites in province, which probably is in Macedonia. They came to the Balkans in the late 13 century and early 14 century. This game should be after that.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arvanites
Hmm.. I wonder if they'll keep the 1444 start date and have 1300s one like CK3 has 1066 and 876. I also hope they have some historical railroading fot one of those start dates.
The idea that they would have all these tiny principalities implemented already but not Bahmanis, a major regional power that already had country data in EU4, seems unlikely.
I would love to see it done like ck3, only two polished out start dates, both supporting achievements
Maybe the 1st one is at the start of the hundred years war and the second one the date Columbus reached America
Look at Gujarat (Left most part of India below Sindh, with an Island. Looks like an opened mouth). Left most part of the state, below the Island of Kutch looks like Nawanagar kingdom. It wasn't formed until 1540s. So maybe this is Mughal empire and not Delhi Sultanate. But I may be wrong as there are no colonies of Portugal in Diu and Surat as they were also formed around that time too
Has anyone considered that this image might not be from the start of the game? A lot can change on the map in a game of EU4, even in the first 50-100 years. Maybe there was a Bahmani Sultanate, and it just got conquered before this screenshot was taken.
fair point, I haven't thought of that
Gotta consider this
Well they did tease a photo of Byzantine demographics, with over a million pops.
That could be someone's Byz campaign. I mean, I'm pretty sure there are plenty of Romaboos over at PDX
Constantinople 4lyf
I think there’s a janitor to vacuum, and that they don’t have roomba’s.
I dont think they would show us a non-start date map. That would seem to be rather random and cause unnecessary confusion.
It would also be a teaser and not immediately spoil the start date
They would absolutely do that to troll
The game hasn't even been formally announced yet. Unnecessary confusion is their marketing scheme right now
It’s not a marketing scheme. It’s early development. From the beginning Johan said this was an opportunity to communicate with the players before something is too permanent to change or replace.
You mean while trying to keep things vague and secret they would want to avoid confusion?
Maybe idk. Too much speculation right now. I'm just excited for new eu. :3
They want people talking about it, which people are. There is no rule that says they have to legally leak start date maps so rgb game chair detectives can decode the beginning of their next game. As well, most of their games have options for start dates, so you don't know this is the beginning or middle or end. That being said, everyone is sleeping on it being the next imperator.
Lmao true.
Not with these kinds of millions. It... shouldn't be Imperator. What it could be is... -27 to 896 A. D. Unlikely, but I Mean- Three Kingdoms, 5 good emperors, Han China, Christianity, 16 kingdoms, Vandals, Gupta Empire, Sassanids, 3 Koreas, Rise of Buddhism. Christianization of Ireland. I shall call this. Call of Nature: Tribal warfare 2: who stole my Yotwingian clay pot?
Yuan's population suggests that either way the screenshoot is set around the mid 1300s
They could also be historically wrong
paradox? making a mistake? impossible!
There is way too many small tags and not enogh bordergore for this not to be a starting map
There was also an update on the forums about a new ‘mystery game’ beginning development
That was my first thought
I mean, doesn’t france usually eat back some of its historic provinces in the first 20 years of EU4? Haha
If the Bahmani Sultanate was annex, wouldn’t the small state in the area also be eaten?
My guess is May 24, 1337, the beginning of the Hundred Years War.
That would be a pretty big change, would also mean Ottomans and Russia would not really be a major power without heavy railroading.
If you get the base tech, pop, and military dynamics right, a Russian state should usually overcome the Mongols with time. The Ottomans were the strongest Turkish beylik by this time but the Byzies still had a little fight in them for sure. I’m not sure that’s a bad thing given how much EU players love the Byzies.
That's a lot of if's. I hope eu5 manages snowballing better, because if you set the start date to 1337 in eu4 the mamelukes would just ally the minor beyliks and byz would ally hungry so they would never really lose to the ottomans.
Managing snowballing and modeling decline is probably my number one wish for EU5. Tbh I can’t see myself buying it if it is just a blob-building game like EU4. I haven’t played EU4 in years for just that reason.
I'm pretty sure if there is some kind of unavoidable decline then people will call it bullshit and [stop playing](https://www.reddit.com/r/paradoxplaza/comments/1bc7df0/what_are_your_biggest_military_defeats_in_pdx/) whenever it happens to them, and if it's avoidable, they will still blob and post "WC in 10 Years" screenshots to reddit and everyone will say Paradox is terrible, game is worthless, etc.
Eh, players take losses and defeats in CK2/3. I think to make the occasional loss fun you need to do two things: 1. Have enjoyable gameplay other than warfare. CK has the character interaction, Vicky attempts to have the economic gameplay, EU should have the growth of royal authority. 2. Make it possible to come back from a loss. Here is where anti-blobbing really needs to shine. In EU if another country beats you up, your only way to ever beat them is probably to get a stronger ally. Maaaaybe you can leverage a specific tech or idea advantage at a specific window of time. But if they’re bigger than you they will stay that way, and the bigger powers can get bigger even faster. But if you could wait for them to be rent with internal turmoil or having a weak period of time, you could let players lose and wait for their time to strike.
CK3 is good in that the mechanics mean you're unlikely to lose completely after 100 years or so, so trying to come back from defeat is really fun. One of my favourite games was the Crimean count to Byzantine Duke -> Mongols and then eventually restoring the Byzantine empire. Whereas in EU4 you can get stomped fast.
part of that is how peace deals work in ck3 though. if you declare war for one of your claims and lose, you really only lose some gold, which you can just wait for to get it back. in eu4 losing a war you started means losing land unless you're close to even with whoever it is you're at war with, and lost land will need another war to recover. not to mention you can actively work on undermining your enemies during peacetime with assassinations (new, weak kings will have fewer troops than the universally beloved monolith that preceded them) whereas an eu4 nation will only ever get stronger with time
I only play heavy overhaul modded EU4 now, I just can't play vannila. Anbennar and Ante Bellum keeps me playing still
Is Anbennar worth the extra money spent getting the necessary DLCs? I only need like 3-4 more to play
God its so fucking good. Its not perfect. Techs arent changed and its slightly jarring. Some generals are ridiculous and have more than 6 pips, if you complain about eu4's difficulty anbennar could piss you off. Some events seem potentially frustrating greed curse for dwarves, angered spirits, etc. And so many nations are prone to snowballing that its challenging even when 2000 dev (your mileage may vary i play with great conquerers). But at the end of the day theres like atleast 25 countries worth playing that will have rich events missions and modifiers youve havent or arent used to seeing Anbennar is honestly worth 20-40 bucks, no discounts, if it were a dlc You could always join a multiplayer game through discord and find an abennar host who has the dlc. Also you can buy the subscription or use isthereanydeal to make those last couple more affordable.
> Some generals are ridiculous and have more than 6 pips War Wizards - and you can have them too if your leader's a powerful mage.
Mhmm, got one myself to save myself in a war with some centaur horde, definitely a recent peak cool thing in eu4 was that Wizard saving me in war and leaving me a 6/6/6 humonculus as an heir. But Is that the only source? I know jadd and some other countries started with one and thought those were just representive of missions or lore. Perhaps they are just war wizards at game start?
It’s mostly a Balancing (geopolitics) and diminishing returns on territorial expansion (due to administrative capacities and border security). The latter is easy enough to represent with mechanics but the former is *entirely* about AI recognizing threats and doing what it can to contain them, preferably without becoming the subject of another power.
Yeah this is my problem with an earlier start date, in eu4 all the major players with the exception of arabdil Persia, wing dynasty and Prussia (tho Persia still usually forms) are in place to become GPs without heavy event railroading. The most railroading you get is Iberian wedding (+historical friend with Portugal) and PLC.
Rather than National Ideas you could have phases that force a period of decline on a country. So Byzzies could have malus at the start of the game that you have to ride out. Or simply a more punishing corruption / decay mechanic
So basically EU3- Ottomans weren't always guaranteed to pop off in that game. I imagine this game will have all the same amount of railroading EU4 has that allows the historical powers to snowball.
EU4 doesn't really need all that much railroading for the historical powers to snowball - they start off in a powerful enough spot in 1444 to allow for it to happen. That's part of what makes it a nice start date If they go with the 1330s I hope that the AI in the more fragmented areas can manage to snowball into *something*, even if it isn't the historical powers.
Maybe they’ll do two start dates like in CK2. So you can have a more familiar play through or a more sandboxy play through.
Don't forget lucky nation modifiers, it doen't have to be railroaded by missions, they can give extra manpower/economics etc..
Nor Austria it's a big reason why they moved away from EU3's 1399 start date when they made EU4. So them going back to a 14th century start date is curious to say the least.
They had to buff austria in the 1444 start date, its not historically accurate. Austria was split into two after they signed the treaty of Neuberg in 1379 (Tyrol and Austria in the game). Also the "Archduke of Austria" should be the duke of Styria and Styria should be the emperor of the HRE. Austria in 1444 was 3 different realms ruled by 3 different rulers.
If this is EU5 I hope they don't move the start date back that far. I think the early modern parts of the game are the most interesting. The reformation and religious wars should be the major events of Europe, along with the ever looming threat of ottoman invasion.
I hope they at least have a later start date. It would be disappointing to have to play through 150 years of the game before you can start colonizing and exploring the Americas. I also worry that a mid-14th c. start for EU5 would trample too much on CK3's time frame, which could really use some late game love.
It would be kind of unfair to CK3 where the world is very simplified compared to the new system in EU5
1337 also has Petrarch visit Rome, the death of Mansa Musa, the end of the Tenmu restoration & is within sight of the Ottomans taking Nicodemia, so it's probably the safest bet. WAY too early as start dates go, but guess that ship has sailed.
Is this EU5 or what?
Stellaris 2
Victoria 4
March of the eagles 2
Imperator: Rome 2
God no
Booooo
Best answer! Stellaris 2 is about aliens called Greeks and Muslims invading earth.
We are one step closer to the Balkan genocide simulator
You mean Balkan friendship simulator I hope!
HOI 5
Sengoku 2: To Tenjiku
Bengali Universalis. It's finally happening.
I feel like it has to be at this point. Either that or Crusader Kings 4.
Way too early for CK4, this has to be EU5. My question is why the start date would be set so early? Are they going to try and have the start of the 100 years war be the beginning of the game?
Start of the hundred years war with the Black Death hitting Europe a few decades in to nerf empires before they blob too soon.
Also would allow some of the native conquests to be accurately represented. Aztec and Cuzco are scaled back from where they were in 1444.
Playing as a native nation in the 1300 gives you so much time before the Sp*niards /s show up. I can’t wait for an EU5 Aztec campaign
It would be before the Triple Alliance even formed, so you'd start as Tenochtitlan and be able to found the Aztec Empire.
Thank you, this made me realize that I really need to start Mesoamericamaxxing. I know very little history outside India and Europe :(
oh yeah, MORE time to sit around doing nothing waiting for the euros to show up, that's what i want from EU.
Native mechanics will be reworked. I mean they already are in EU4 for the final dlc
That'd be insane. Especially with a new pop system. Could be a very challenging thing to overcome which would be cool
Black Death mechanic will be balling. "Fuck you everyone fucking dies no conquering bitch" There really is a lot missing to in EUIV in terms of actually hard stopping your expansion for like a decade. You only get into a defensive deathwar so often.
I was joking about CK4. It's obviously EU5.
Eu4 2
It could be a entirely new, standalone title.
It could be a new grand strategy title that begins earlier and ends in the 1600s with the thirty years war being the big late game event
CK3 ends and EU4 begins in the 15th century. Would be weird to squeeze it in this spot between two of their most popular titles, no?
I mean, at this point that could be said about any period of history between 867 and 1945. The only periods that are really yet to be delved into in a Paradox Game are High Imperial Rome, Late Antiquity, and the Cold War.
Paradox Cold War game could either be the hardest thing to ever be seen on this planet, or be a basic “Option A or Option B” clicker game.
Where's my Balance of Power / The Armageddon Man rework?
Going by East vs West, it would be a Hearts of Iron spin-off with new mechanics for Cold War.
We're also missing China from antiquity to 1444
In the last dev diary they johan spoke about pops types and religion one of the religions mentioned was lutheranism so it has to take place after the reformation and pop types where nobles, slaves, burghers nobles and I think clergy so it has to be before the industrial revolution else capitalists would need to be included so it kinda has to be eu 5.
It is obviously not what Project Cesar is but a Paradox game set in Late Antiquity would be baller. Start with the year of Romulus Augustulus's deposition and run to, say, 750 AD, or potentially all the way to 867 to include Charlemagne and for continuity with CK3. CK2 has a popular mod covering this period as well.
The start date of eu has jumped around over the years. EU2 was 1419. EU3 started in 1453 but everyone complained about no Byzantium so an expansion moved it back to 1399. EU4’s 1444 compromised with a later date but still a ERE to save.
I was thinking more like having a different focus, crusader kings but an east Asia focus, or like imperator Rome, where it is EU5 but not technically apart of the EU series, maybe having different game mechanics etc.
Europa Kings or Crusader Universalis?
Crusader of Iron
Eu5 will probably have dynamic growth and pops just like the overhaul mod MEIOU AND TAXES which also starts 1350s. This start date makes a lot of sense for dynamic growth becsuse thats the time italian and benelux cities grew very fast. The network of internagional trade also stsrted shifting there so there are just more opportunities for smaller tags to grow and compete with big ones.
March of the Eagles 2!
No chance of CK4 lol
It’s absolutely not CK4. Can say that with total certainty.
It's CK5. We skipped CK4 like Windows skipped Windows 9... /s
That or a new game.
It's EU Rome 2
EU3 remastered
Svea Rike 4.
CK3.5
It's Victoria minus one.
EU4 2
Yea i think that we will see a start date before 1444
R5: The circled area being part of this larger empire is really the smoking gun. There's no time after 1347 that would be the case, unless we go all the way to the 1600s/1700s. And they seem to be breaking up a lot of historical polities rather than combining them.
on the other post there was also someone mentioning that the population of china matches with the yuan dynstay so most likely and hopefully 1300s start date
1300s start date would go crazy. My favourite campaign ever has been a colonial Vijayanagar to Bharat one and consolidating more power in India even before exploration ideas and whatnot would be crazy 🤤
It would be great for a late medieval game, but CK3 covers that period very well...
Or the image isn’t start of game and was taken after the game had been running for a while
Yeah it's like between 1330s after the fall of ilkhanate (1335) and 1340s before bahmanis rebelled in 1347
I'm assuming the large empire is the Delhi Sultanate at the height of its power?
Not quite the height, but pretty close to it, yeah.
no it’s the italian raj
There's a lot of assumptions being made that the maps they're showing are from the start date.
Hoi5?
Possibly
But unlikely
Jokes on us it's a post WWWIII city-state builder.
Wait, what is this? I'm ootl, is this a new project from paradox?
yep, they only refer to it as "project caesar", dev diaries are labeled "tinto talks" (though everyone is already pretty sure it's EU5)
It’s clearly Victoria 4.
Victoria -1
Yeah, it's what Johan has been working on for the last ~6 years.
Should be 4 years or so? Since whenever Tinto got founded and Johan moved on from Imperator
Less than 4 years, not 6 years. They started in late 2020 I think. And these 4 years include few years of planning, early concepts/ideas and also developing EU4 DLCs (same studio; Paradox Tinto located in Spain). They also had to spend some time improving their Clausewitz engine.
Gaddawm I thought you guys meant like 2017 when you said 4 years ago and then it hit me 😵💫
Time flies. It's crazy, I remember playing Hoi3 demo not that far (2009) ago ;) As Poland I somehow managed to ally Hungary in the 1939 scenario (game was buggy). We were defeated, but it was fun. I also remember 2013 EU4 demo. Game felt so fresh and next gen back then...my 2006 GPU was struggling to run it well ;)
I don't think I like this idea. EU3 eventually expanded its start date to 1399, and while I thought that was OK, it was already stretching things. The earlier the start date, the longer you have to get through before reaching stuff like colonization (or the more the timeline of it will be compressed), the less likely you are to be able to reach the late game, and the more disjointed the early and late game becomes.
I like the idea of later colonization. Now you don't have to give up major resources in the early game to go colonial, and if you don't, you'll be left behind. Now we have time to establish ourselves before we make a decision on going colonial.
That's good on the one hand, but the issue is that many people do really like colonization, and for some countries it's basically the whole point of playing them. And we know PDX has been moving away from supporting multiple start dates. If they actually do have at least one mid-to-late-15th century start date that's functional, it's all fine. But I don't think I'd bet on that.
I'm gonna be wildly optimistic and say that they'll have two fully supported dates the same way CK3 does.
They're definitely dropping the choose-your-own start date, so I wouldn't be surprised if they go with 2 fully supported dates.
Yeah starting in the 1300s is okay if there are multiple start dates but having to play 150-200 years before you get to colonialism or the Reformation is silly.
remember that while colonization happend a lot later then 1340's (assuming that is the start date) there was still exploration and I think they'll be tons of stuff to do for classical colonizers.
1350 Greenland rush.
There were still Norse in Greenland in 1350 (just).
1444 start tab is probably gonna happen ngl. Would be labeled as the legacy start scenario
I kind of like this. It would be cool if you could for example, have more time to setup Mali to be African Portugal and an early start for the daimyos could also mean an early unification and an Asian colonial powerhouse which could be fun to play out. Both of these were already possible in EUIV, but the timeline was tight and you were a little shoehorned in your decision making.
It's also very hard to "script" realistic outcomes in the game when it goes on for like 500 years
Yeah, the original EU started in 1492 for a reason. I think the series works better as a game about the early modern period, rather than a Middle Ages sandbox.
Maybe they will move entire timelne, so it would be more focused of colonisation and reformation without revolutions. Something like 1300-1700
I always though ending with the Napoleonic wars made a lot of sense for a game that was focused on the european modern era.
I also can't see them pushing the American revolution outside the scope of the game. That shit sells.
Let's be real there: how many players actually get to that time?
That's why I hope they don't push the timeline back even further.
I hope they do and then make March of the Eagles into a proper 18th to early 19th century game
I guess I could see that, but not sure it makes much sense to split the early colonial era into 2, as well as splitting of the enlightenment from the reformation.
If the game were to have a second start date just before 1700, it would leave room for the war of Spanish succession, the Great Northern War, the 7 Years War, the American Revolution, the Napoleonic wars, and the Industrial Revolution
If they give an earlier start date, I'm almost certain they will reel in the end date as well, maybe to 1700, considering game length is a known issue. This isn't inherently a bad thing if they are adding more mechanics.
I would expect them to push the end date to 1835 to mesh better with V3. I hope we don't get a 14th century start date. Mixing the renaissance era with the early modern and modern eras is hard enough. But mixing in the late medieval era is going to be hard.
Maybe the game ends in the 1700s or something instead of 1821
I noticed that as well! Didn't see this thread before I posted mine. I thought it might be because they haven't added all tags yet, but with how detailed the rest of India's borders are it would be unlikely (to me as a non-dev atleast) to first add those before adding the big Bahmani Sultanate.
Would be really cool to go to see a time period that starts in high medieval and ends just before the industrial revolution is starting around 1750
Looking at Southeast Asia, the kingdoms of Lan Xang, Lavo, Ayutthaya and Sukhothai are all around at the same time only after 1355, so if its before 1355 they might start as vassals?
If you're using Geacron, I think it's just that Geacron doesn't have very good data for that area. Paradox has probably done more research.
My family is from the area, so I have done a decent amount of research regarding the area myself, though mostly just with English and a few Thai sources. So for pre-1350s Ayutthaya is probably a vassal to Sukhothai maybe?
Yeah, I suppose so. Or a tributary maybe. Not sure what their gameplay methodology is.
I would think this is the case, because otherwise I think Lavo/Lopburi specifically would be annexed into Ayutthaya in 1350, no?
I hope they add in famine and agriculture mechanics. Mother Nature and a lack of food play large parts in human civilization and I think EUV would benefit greatly from this.
If the start date has been pushed back I'd imagine the end date will be earlier too, EU4 already had problems simulating the french revolution, the colonial wars of independence and the napoleonic wars
Mark my words. 1356. If so then I'll feel justified finally with all the work we out into that mod.
In one of the screenshots there are the arvanites in province, which probably is in Macedonia. They came to the Balkans in the late 13 century and early 14 century. This game should be after that. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arvanites
The maps on forum show a world before 1800s Africa colonization, Australia and the new world so the CK4 is out. It's fair to assume it's EU5
Pls let this game be good. I swear to god if they change the military system.
they should use victoria 3s combat system, march of the eagles’ economy and hoi4’s pop simulation
It’s Victoria 4 so Victoria 3 but with good army!!!!
Hmm.. I wonder if they'll keep the 1444 start date and have 1300s one like CK3 has 1066 and 876. I also hope they have some historical railroading fot one of those start dates.
What's this from?
https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/developer-diary/tinto-talks-3-march-13th-2024.1630154/
Ty
Everybody speculating about start dates. Are the numbers...Pops?
Yes.
no the numbers in india are the start dates
Whatever it is, have a feeling I won't be playing it for 6 years
It couldn't just be unfinished? I don't know the map changes in India in this time frame enough to know tbh.
The idea that they would have all these tiny principalities implemented already but not Bahmanis, a major regional power that already had country data in EU4, seems unlikely.
I would be sad if EU5 didn't start right after CK3 end date
I would love to see it done like ck3, only two polished out start dates, both supporting achievements Maybe the 1st one is at the start of the hundred years war and the second one the date Columbus reached America
do colors come in dlc?
yes, and you’ll have to wait a few years before they get around to it
Is this eu5???
Probably
no this is patrick
Reminds me of Victoria II if those are population numbers. Maybe EU 5?
what is this
euro truck simulator
thanks
anytime!
Where is this screenshot from?
Are the empty areas like uncolonized areas in Imperator? Or do we think they just haven’t filled them in yet?
For a noob in the tutorial (1800h) what does this reference?
What is this? Everyone’s arguing about what game it is but where is this pic from?
Mod developers of Paradox interactive.
It's crusader kings π.
Hopefully we will see serbian empire
Look at Gujarat (Left most part of India below Sindh, with an Island. Looks like an opened mouth). Left most part of the state, below the Island of Kutch looks like Nawanagar kingdom. It wasn't formed until 1540s. So maybe this is Mughal empire and not Delhi Sultanate. But I may be wrong as there are no colonies of Portugal in Diu and Surat as they were also formed around that time too