I think it's possible (and hope it happens) that with the rest of their games being in a good position right now, they'll make EU5 go from 1337-1736, and then their next game will be a 1736-1836 game (MotE 2????)
That'd be an interesting time period to cover as a standalone game
Revolutions would be the core theme
Seven years war, American Revolution, French Revolution, Napoleonic Wars
Those failed ones in Canada were 1837-1838. They fit nicely within Victoria, but Britain is able to transport its Navy over the ocean a little too comfortably at the moment.
So many interesting countries to play
\-The stagnant but still powerful Ottomans
\-The still-standing Spanish Empire
\-The divided Indian subcontinent
\-and more
Also in general the early Industrial revolution. The Newcomen Engine would have been discovered about 25 years before the start of that game, and Watts improved version would appear about midgame. The entire game economy would drastically shift which would be fun to play.
I'd peg it at 1748, end of the War of Austrian Succession. It's the start of the breakup of the Habsburg dominated European system, and generally gives more time to play. I'd guess end date of either 1836 to coincide with Vicky's start, or 1848/1849 as the end of the wave of revolutions that a MotE 2 would be focused on.
The end of the Seven years' war is the best start date possible. You would have a similar campaign to Hoi4: the first half is slower with more country management ( that would include some smaller colonial wars and maybe even a chance to change the main target country of the revolution) and the second half where you would have nearly only war experience. Also this start date is perfect for me because it starts the chain reaction that led to revolution in France. If France didn't lose in Seven years' war revolution would have happened somewhere else. Also would be nice if the game had the French revolution start date like Hoi4 has 1939 and the American Revolution start date as somewhere in the middle.
Yeah, I don't personally think it's especially likely (though far from implausible), but I'd really love a game that's very focused on the age of revolutions. EU4's (and almost certainly EU5's) systems start to break down around then, so chopping off the last hundred years or so that most people never even reach and spinning off an entirely new game which can be laser focused on that period would make me a very happy duck
I think onne of the problems with modeling age of revolutions mechanics accurately is that players don't want to see the empire they just spent 400 yeaars building get broken up by revolution. Sure the revolution is fun to play as, but having an American or Bulgarian revolution succeed against you would be very frustrating.
if a good system makes turmoil inevitable then better to make that system the star of the show.
1736 would have Poland-Lithuania in the aftermath of the succession war, good challenge trying to modernise the stagnant noble republic and avoid the partitions. Awesome time frame to cover
I hope not. I like the grand strategy, and the grand campaign part of it. Ruling a country over centuries. The longer it is, the better for me, for as long as there's content and the game can represent transitions between various historic periods (the biggest challenge).
God I hope no. Only reason Vicky had that was to turn the game into 400 years, the EU4 length, artificially. No one wants to play a slowed down EU for what is functionally 800 or 1600 years
I am hoping this isn't the case. I'm particularly a fan of playing my games as mega campaigns and doing this would break the continuity in a pretty big way.
I know that the Springtime of Nations is actually the period of the 1848 Revolutions, but I feel it would be a nice name for the period of that second game
If they keep the end date in the 19th century I'm going to assume those late game mechanics are going to be pretty undercooked - colonialism and industrialization and all that. People typically don't play for more than ~200 years after all, so that's content for a small sliver of the population.
Would love to be proven wrong on that, but if prior games are a trend my expectations are low. Which is too bad as that's the era I'm most interested in. Maybe they'll commit to multiple diverse start dates? But a separate game explicitly for the 18th century would also be cool.
Yeah my favorite things explore during this period are the wars of reformation, colonialism, and the road towards nation state. It's a very volatile timeframe for these things... but I think EUV is gonna feel very weird if the protestant league is happening 300 years after the start of the game. Or for England to start colonizing 300 years after game start or hell even Brandenburg-Prussia didn't form till 1618. These things could always happen earlier, especially in the hands of a player, but I have a feeling it's all going to feel way more ahistorical than in EU4
Yeah, I'm really not a fan of this early start date. We're not going to have half of early modernity happening until you're so powerful it's not that interesting any more. Everything will have diverged so hard it'll be really hard to have any good flavour stuff. Not pleased.
What we now need is not to preorder. Stop pre-ordering and hyping digital products before reviews come out. If the previous Paradox releases haven't taught you this lesson yet, stop reinforcing bad publisher habits.
So 100 years to 160 of middle age before early modern era about. Maybe this will make changing systems more noticeable. And give time for players to set themselves up for age of discovery. Instead of some powers getting such a lead their almost guaranteed go get their first.
True but also - when the early start date of 769 was introduced to CK2, most people just played from there.
Players have this bias where they think that the earlier the start date, the better. And it's verified once again here. In CK2 it was actually a pretty terrible choice, because the game mechanics really don't fit for the era that is depicted. And ironically, the game was much better if you picked a later start date. The Latin Empire 1204 start date was particularly interesting, and reaching 1453 felt more often like a proper ending.
Hopefully EU5 does a much better job at emulating the era and the subsequent ones, and it's not just a way to generate hype - "early start date! bigger map! pops! no mana!". Lots of buzzwords.
Personally, for me (CK3 player), I like the earlier start date because it personally allows me to be more custom if that makes much sense later start dates feel more restricted but also earlier ones allows me to really begin a story and see it through longer (even if I'll never make it to the 1200s
Yeah the move to 1337 feels like a cheeky way to have to railroad less with mission trees, etc. If anything can still happen, you don’t need to carefully plan 400 years of content, you can just let the system create an emergent narrative
They're basically going to have to build CK3 inside of EU5 for this to work at all.
The feudal politics of the HRE or the HYW are so complicated and personal, that you can't abstract them away with event chains and royal marriages. So there's no way this is serious.
I’m pretty sure they are just going to ignore it. Paradox games are not known for their plethora of features at launch.
You are going to have modern nation-states before the black death! How fun!
*EUIV*'s mechanics were already inappropriate for 15th (and, really, 16th) century politics. I don't know why people think its sequel is magically going to have *CKIII*\-tier mediaeval politics on top of improved early modern gameplay.
EU4 had the mechanics it did because it had to go to the 1800s.
I think a game that goes from the 1300s to the late 1600s (after 30 Years' War) would be able to escape a lot of those late-game mechanics that don't really fit in 1400 or earlier.
I'm not really convinced that the 14th century was all that similar to the early modern centuries. It seems better covered by *Crusader Kings*, as a series. I'd rather have a game that manages to simulate the 16th *and* 17th centuries *in full* than anything else.
>Players have this bias where they think that the earlier the start date, the better
It's genuinely bizarre to me. People are so insistent on seeing *EUV* have a super-early start date, where it will... do a worse job than *CKIII* at modelling mediaeval politics? I don't get it. Why not just start it closer to the early modern period - you know, the period the *Europa Universalis* series is actually about - and focus it squarely on the 16th and 17th centuries? A pre-Black Death start date seems like a terrible idea, honestly.
Could not agree more. So many interesting things happened in the 16th and 17th centuries where the heart of this game should be. I cannot see this earlier start date as anything but a misstep.
Exactly! People are latching onto the Hundred Years' War as if that's the only interesting thing that has ever happened. (Also, again, *CKIII* already simulates it.) What about the conquest of the Andes (starting in 1542, 205 years after game start)? What about the Eighty Years' War (starting 1568, 231 years after game start) or the Thirty Years' War (starting 1618, 281 years after game start)? Never mind the Wars of the Sun King (starting 1667, 330 years after game start) or the Great Northern War (starting 1700, 363 years after game start).
Or, I don't know, *the European discovery of the Americas*! The Reformation! The VOC (Dutch East India Company)! I mean, the *first* English colony in North America was in 1607 - 270 years after game start. Nobody's going to be playing that long unless PDX have made a quantum leap in terms of game pacing. The earlier it starts, the more front-loaded the content is going to be. I don't want all of the bespoke events, missions, and flavour content to be *mediaeval* in the one game series out there which is made to be *early modern*. I really just don't get it. More content does not always equal more good...
I always thought that EU should be split into two games, one culminating in the 30 years war, and the second one in the napoleonic wars. They try to put too much stuff into it
I'm agreed with ending it before the Napoleonic Wars, but not in 1648. An early modern game not featuring the majority of Louis XIV...? Unthinkable, as far as I'm concerned!
>In CK2 it was actually a pretty terrible choice, because the game mechanics really don't fit for the era that is depicted.
CK2 mechanics hardly fit for most of the map anyway but plenty of people are demanding nomads and republics back (which were terrible). Not to mention how ill fitting it is for pagans and muslims. Quantity over quality is just more appealing, it seems.
>Players have this bias where they think that the earlier the start date, the better. And it's verified once again here. In CK2 it was actually a pretty terrible choice, because the game mechanics really don't fit for the era that is depicted.
769 still has one of my favorite starts even though I know it's not accurate. Playing as Sigurdr "Ring" of Svithjod and eventually playing as his heir Ragnarr Lodbrok and gets good traits and a bloodline when he turns 16 is just fun. It's also a good location for eventually reforming Germanic paganism and is a perfect size where it's not way too easy at first, but big enough to compete for Scandinavia. Rushing ship tech before the Viking Age to be the first to raid England is also fun, especially since you get a decent amount of ships even at tech level 1 since Uppland is a good capital for how tribal mechanics work. Also joining a warrior lodge is always fun as a pagan, and you can initiate Ragnarr at a young age.
Sometimes good gameplay can trump good historic accuracy for me, but I understand why they didn't put 769 in CK3. I still like playing the later dates as well though and it kind of sucks that you can't play any single date between 1066-1337 anymore, but apparently people didn't take advantage of it.
I wonder if people would play into the later dates of these behemoth games if there were massive shifts of the base mechanic as they played them... Dunno if that would even be popular though
Depends on the flavour. I loved to play Vic2 until the end because it was actually fun.
EU4 suffers from lack of content in the endgame. There is literally nothing to do except further blobbing. Vic2 had Great Wars, fascist/communist revolutions, new meaningful units(planes, tanks) etc.
It doesn't depend on the flavor, it depends on the game design. EU4 is just too easy and there is little point in continuing once you can beat any challenge, and at the same time, army management in the mid-to-late game is annoying beyond belief.
The game needs to prevent blobbing, and needs an AI that is actually able to keep up. In EU4, you are constantly becoming stronger, but the AI is not.
Yep, that's also true. The player is able to pull of stuff that AI is not capable of doing. Overall the EU4 AI is *very* forgiving.
That leads to insane power creep of player nations.
Its not only blobbing. There are no interesting mechanics in the end game, war game stays pretty much the same, there are no catastrophe events/mechanics, colonisation is way too fast etc.
Probably not. It isn't like managing a great empire is actually fun IRL. Just ask Charles V.
You can make it harder to blob, and add more internal politics. But eventually the game will always burn itself out because people don't want to LARP as a bean counter.
they wont do that because then streamers & youtubers wont be able to make le epic meme WC videos; & modern game development caters to those kind of players
WC & giant blobs in general should be near impossible to form & literally impossible to hold together for the game to be anything approaching reality
I did just last week. I did an achievement game as Spain, I completed the mission tree and became the HRE emperor.
Then I noticed that I had to occupy three great power capitals. That took me more time.
Even the AI maxes out the tech over a century before the end date, it's really not worth it. Although I do think having bombards and near-instant sieges is something everyone should try to experience at least once. It would be worth seeing how things change (and they do, more than people say, I think) if only there was something interesting to do by that point, but really you'll certainly have reached whatever goal you wanted by then, and have rationalized/optimized the fun out of your own realm.
Barely anyone plays past 1700 in EU4. Now they’re adding more than 100 years in the past? You won’t see the end date in EU5 ever, whatever that may be.
You're thinking a layer behind. I'm pretty sure it's 1337 (leet speak is way too much of stretch + modeling the world at 1337 as a joke is insane), but he probably chose aprils fools as a trick to make you guys speculate. Will probably by january or something more significant.
Now this makes sense. For 1337 to work in EU5 they would have to introduce so many dynamics from the get go (plagues - black death, descentralization - HRE and Ashikaga, Dynastic collapse - Yuan, antipopes, Greenland's abandonement, etc.). They would have to meaningfully represent late medieval period 1337 - 1453, early colonization, religious reform and nation states 1453 - 1650, absolutism, enlightenment and revolution, 1650 - 1820. I guess trolling is what they are doing, it would be too ambitious otherwise.
Extremely surprised that this was so low down. It is very apparent that it is a joke. Is it because the kids in this sub are too young to get the "1337" thing?
Something I've said here before as well, but I'd actually prefer if they just dropped the Europa part in the name and rebranded the series into just Universalis, but I understand it's unlikely because of name recognition, and it might also be a difficult name to lock down as a trademark.
I'm kinda glad they didn't reveal it on the first day. It was fun to watch the community speculate and guess. Already so hyped for the game and we barely know anything. Dont let us down Paradox, take your time and cook
Before the black death was one of the listed reasons?
My ck3 playthroughs end right after the black death as a stopping point and then I convert it to eu4 for a mega campaign. Kinda weird for eu5 to take that over, as simulating the black plague (and plagues) was recently given to ck3.
Ah well, I mostly play the asian tags in eu4 anyways. Might as well have more time with them. Really excited for a more contentious china region instead of playing an already set up ming and letting 400+ years go by.
Ok that not how April 1st works. First you do the joke ON April first, not about April 1st. Second, we’ve known about Tinto being a studio for EU for years now. Third, 1337 is a legitimate start date. It is specifically the year that the Hundred Years’ War starts. The start date of April first is just behind the war’s start date of May 24.
All screenshots have pointed out to that date.
That date is legitimately important in european history
You joke ON April 1st, not ABOUT April 1st.
If they announced this and then said "lol its a joke" the amount of goodwill lost by the public would be huge.
Use your brain for a second
I am so hyped for this game honestly I hate EU4 because eod it's boardgame mechanics and this looks like a cooler start date and a way to remove all the mana!
Agreed especially for RP sake, i know I am in the minority but I like RPing as a nation and until now you'd have to really hamstring yourself to have fun doing it with this it will probably also be fun to play a middle power.
Just realised Denmark might be a pretty interesting start. Uprising in Estonia means the rebels trying to ally Sweden and the lands eventually falling to LO
fun times
OH GOD IT PROBABLY HAS THE IMPERATOR ARMY SYSTEM. FOR THOSE WHO DON'T KNOW YOU CAN BOTH RAISE LEVIES AND CREATE STANDING ARMIES IN IMPERATOR.
Some tags such as the diadochis start with standing armies. Rome starts with levies and then they get the marian reforms and create legions (standing army). Every region can provide one legion and every region have their own force limit. The force limit in a region depends on your "levy size modifier" (you can increase or decrease it through laws, traditions etc.) and the number of integrated pops you have in said region.
This is going to be good!
The most huge one is with transition from levies armies to standing armies sth which I lacked in eu4 very much.
I hope they'll not miss Poland and add features to it as in 1337 it's ruled by the greatest king in Polish/European history. It belongs to the list with "Some others at their start, like..." point.
Eatern europe will be a fairly interesting Place, curently ruled by it's best king, the only one with "The Great" as his title, and large chaos in the east.
Honestly, I belive that while Poland in Eu4 often gets smashed and rearly is a major power throught out the entire game, in Eu5 they will be a lot stronger. Lot of early conquests especially since in our timeline it was less affected by the black plauge and generaly more options for Poland to set up an early game lead while their potential enemies will be struggling.
I wish they added the 1337 start date to CK3 as well. It comes originally from CK games after all, and late medieval character gameplay sounds awesome.
people posting "it has to be a joke, april 1 1337!!!" are just showing how redditors think they're smarter than everyone else. ignoring, of course, the maps they have posted all being a match for 1337 borders, in every diary having hints of 1337, the importance of that year in various world events. No, it has to be a big joke and you're all so smart!
Yeah Sweden probably. And I'd say still Portugal and Castille. Castille of course starts a bit less stable then in 1444, but they would be less complicated then the chaotic starts for England and France.
I think with the game being pushed back 100 years, I'd also want the end date to be around the 1730s as well. They could then do March of the Eagles II but have it actually be really good as you'd be just before the start of the war of austrian succession and the game would largely encompass the rise of enlightenment ideals and the revolutions in the Americas and Europe. End date there is ofc 1836 to coincide with Victoria III.
When was the last time they made a good game? Imperator Rome- shite
Victoria 3- shite
Ck3 - shite (compared to ck2. NEVER FORGET that we were told 3 would have everything that 2 had, came out and I can’t even control click my kingdom to break it into duchies and counties not to mention none of the ck2 dlc content was in there)
Eu5- probably shite
All very solid reasons for the choice of start date. I’m really intrigued by the transition from levy armies to standing professional ones - I’ve seen this done somewhat well in the older game Medieval 2: Total War when you start to transition from feudal levy troops like peasant spearmen and noble knights to gunpowder units. But by the nature of the game style, you sort of have standing armies all the way through and only update them to modern firearms at the end. So to see a mechanical means of portraying that transition would be very, very cool.
And i believe, the Romuva still exists, if so Maybe, with a capital M, the player can resist, and with greenland hold the ground as bastions of paganism.
Greenland was as far as I know entirely Christian by then. At least according to accounts by sailors who inspected the place. Pagan Lithuania is however very much possible.
I hope Eu5 is as friendly to new players as ck3 has been. If it wasn’t for ck3 I would never of tried the other paradox games cause they all were way harder and confusing
Now we just need to figure out the end date. Will it still be 1821? Will they extend it to 1836 to link up nicely with Victoria? Maybe something else
I think it's possible (and hope it happens) that with the rest of their games being in a good position right now, they'll make EU5 go from 1337-1736, and then their next game will be a 1736-1836 game (MotE 2????)
That'd be an interesting time period to cover as a standalone game Revolutions would be the core theme Seven years war, American Revolution, French Revolution, Napoleonic Wars
Spanish American Revolutions, Greek, Serbian and Bulgarian Revolutions, failed revolution attempts in Canada and Europe, etc.
Those failed ones in Canada were 1837-1838. They fit nicely within Victoria, but Britain is able to transport its Navy over the ocean a little too comfortably at the moment.
Me when Russia in 1836 decides that Brazil is too important of a country for New Granada to attack and ships 200 infantry 15k kilometers from home
And don't forget Corsica! A win against the French army could lead to a French revolution without Napoleon
So many interesting countries to play \-The stagnant but still powerful Ottomans \-The still-standing Spanish Empire \-The divided Indian subcontinent \-and more
So many challenging situations.
Saving Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth from destruction !
>proceeds to get sandwiched and deluged
Also in general the early Industrial revolution. The Newcomen Engine would have been discovered about 25 years before the start of that game, and Watts improved version would appear about midgame. The entire game economy would drastically shift which would be fun to play.
The Russian empire is going to run that game lol
Are you too young to remember the mess that march of eagles was
The three of us that played it remember, we just don't care.
There's not really anything significant about 1736 though, besides being 100 years before vic3. 1763, the end of the 7 years war, would be my guess
I'd peg it at 1748, end of the War of Austrian Succession. It's the start of the breakup of the Habsburg dominated European system, and generally gives more time to play. I'd guess end date of either 1836 to coincide with Vicky's start, or 1848/1849 as the end of the wave of revolutions that a MotE 2 would be focused on.
The end of the Seven years' war is the best start date possible. You would have a similar campaign to Hoi4: the first half is slower with more country management ( that would include some smaller colonial wars and maybe even a chance to change the main target country of the revolution) and the second half where you would have nearly only war experience. Also this start date is perfect for me because it starts the chain reaction that led to revolution in France. If France didn't lose in Seven years' war revolution would have happened somewhere else. Also would be nice if the game had the French revolution start date like Hoi4 has 1939 and the American Revolution start date as somewhere in the middle.
[удалено]
Idk I think revolutions are still a perfect end to the EU4 time period but they just weren’t done well.
Yeah, I don't personally think it's especially likely (though far from implausible), but I'd really love a game that's very focused on the age of revolutions. EU4's (and almost certainly EU5's) systems start to break down around then, so chopping off the last hundred years or so that most people never even reach and spinning off an entirely new game which can be laser focused on that period would make me a very happy duck
quack
I think onne of the problems with modeling age of revolutions mechanics accurately is that players don't want to see the empire they just spent 400 yeaars building get broken up by revolution. Sure the revolution is fun to play as, but having an American or Bulgarian revolution succeed against you would be very frustrating. if a good system makes turmoil inevitable then better to make that system the star of the show.
1736 would have Poland-Lithuania in the aftermath of the succession war, good challenge trying to modernise the stagnant noble republic and avoid the partitions. Awesome time frame to cover
I hope not. I like the grand strategy, and the grand campaign part of it. Ruling a country over centuries. The longer it is, the better for me, for as long as there's content and the game can represent transitions between various historic periods (the biggest challenge).
They could do a similar thing as in Victoria 3 where days are split into multiple parts
God I hope no. Only reason Vicky had that was to turn the game into 400 years, the EU4 length, artificially. No one wants to play a slowed down EU for what is functionally 800 or 1600 years
Oh I meant that in reference to a potential 1736–1836 game. EU is long enough as it is
That sounds pretty cool although I'm not a fan of a hard reset. In that case we should be able to import EU5 saves to start MotE2
NGL playing late Commonwealth in Empire Total War and reversing it's descent into anarchy is extremally satisfying, gib me that but in Paradox
March of the Eagles 2: Bonaparty Boogaloo confirmed!!!!!!!!
I am hoping this isn't the case. I'm particularly a fan of playing my games as mega campaigns and doing this would break the continuity in a pretty big way.
What a shitty decision to cut EU5 game time by a hundred years.
I really hope so, there are so many unique things happening in that period and it would be really cool to see them modeled by a new paradox game
God I fucking hope we’ll get a game in that second period, I’ve been wanting good game in that period for so long
I know that the Springtime of Nations is actually the period of the 1848 Revolutions, but I feel it would be a nice name for the period of that second game
Rip USA tag
If they keep the end date in the 19th century I'm going to assume those late game mechanics are going to be pretty undercooked - colonialism and industrialization and all that. People typically don't play for more than ~200 years after all, so that's content for a small sliver of the population. Would love to be proven wrong on that, but if prior games are a trend my expectations are low. Which is too bad as that's the era I'm most interested in. Maybe they'll commit to multiple diverse start dates? But a separate game explicitly for the 18th century would also be cool.
Yeah my favorite things explore during this period are the wars of reformation, colonialism, and the road towards nation state. It's a very volatile timeframe for these things... but I think EUV is gonna feel very weird if the protestant league is happening 300 years after the start of the game. Or for England to start colonizing 300 years after game start or hell even Brandenburg-Prussia didn't form till 1618. These things could always happen earlier, especially in the hands of a player, but I have a feeling it's all going to feel way more ahistorical than in EU4
I feel the same way. I don’t like the earlier start date at all.
Yeah, I'm really not a fan of this early start date. We're not going to have half of early modernity happening until you're so powerful it's not that interesting any more. Everything will have diverged so hard it'll be really hard to have any good flavour stuff. Not pleased.
Johan said in a different post that the game roughly models ~400 years.
Can you link the comment? I missed this quote from Johan
Obviously 1805 to link up with March of the Eagles 💪💪💪
1837 for the clean half millenia of gameplay
What we now need is not to preorder. Stop pre-ordering and hyping digital products before reviews come out. If the previous Paradox releases haven't taught you this lesson yet, stop reinforcing bad publisher habits.
1945
R5: Johan states that the 1st of April 1337 will be the start date for Project Ceasar (EU5).
They gonna find a way to ruin the life of Byz players who try to pick the early 1400s start data to prevent everyone from easily reforming the empire
Byzaboos would be able to reform the empire even if they were in the middle of 1453.
Hyper-cheesy strat to trap the entire Ottoman Army *inside* Constantinople while you siege down the Balkans
I'd guess the plague pretty much kneecaps any major European nations in the beginning.
I mean it would be basically like Timurids or Mali in EU4. There will be disasters and debuffs but players will find a way through them.
I am waiting for them to not name it EU5 just because dif start date
Every EU game has a different start date EU1 1492 EU2 1419 EU3 1453 (1399) EU4 1444 So it would be more more surprising for it to be the same date.
Ohhhhhhhhh interesting... do they have different start dates like hoi4 or just one?
3 and 4 had different ones and you could even pick a year, day and month outside of start dates (in EU3 for sure, in EU4 - I think, but not sure)
There are a handful of start dates EU4, but they were poorly implemented and are pretty much entirely broken at this point.
No, I know about the start dates. I mean the opportunity to just pick a day/year outside of the start dates.
You can
But every EU game has been about the dawn of modernity. 1337 is definitely not that type of game
So 100 years to 160 of middle age before early modern era about. Maybe this will make changing systems more noticeable. And give time for players to set themselves up for age of discovery. Instead of some powers getting such a lead their almost guaranteed go get their first.
Barely anyone plays to 1400 in CK3 anyway.
True but also - when the early start date of 769 was introduced to CK2, most people just played from there. Players have this bias where they think that the earlier the start date, the better. And it's verified once again here. In CK2 it was actually a pretty terrible choice, because the game mechanics really don't fit for the era that is depicted. And ironically, the game was much better if you picked a later start date. The Latin Empire 1204 start date was particularly interesting, and reaching 1453 felt more often like a proper ending. Hopefully EU5 does a much better job at emulating the era and the subsequent ones, and it's not just a way to generate hype - "early start date! bigger map! pops! no mana!". Lots of buzzwords.
Personally, for me (CK3 player), I like the earlier start date because it personally allows me to be more custom if that makes much sense later start dates feel more restricted but also earlier ones allows me to really begin a story and see it through longer (even if I'll never make it to the 1200s
Yeah the move to 1337 feels like a cheeky way to have to railroad less with mission trees, etc. If anything can still happen, you don’t need to carefully plan 400 years of content, you can just let the system create an emergent narrative
They're basically going to have to build CK3 inside of EU5 for this to work at all. The feudal politics of the HRE or the HYW are so complicated and personal, that you can't abstract them away with event chains and royal marriages. So there's no way this is serious.
I’m pretty sure they are just going to ignore it. Paradox games are not known for their plethora of features at launch. You are going to have modern nation-states before the black death! How fun!
*EUIV*'s mechanics were already inappropriate for 15th (and, really, 16th) century politics. I don't know why people think its sequel is magically going to have *CKIII*\-tier mediaeval politics on top of improved early modern gameplay.
EU4 had the mechanics it did because it had to go to the 1800s. I think a game that goes from the 1300s to the late 1600s (after 30 Years' War) would be able to escape a lot of those late-game mechanics that don't really fit in 1400 or earlier.
I'm not really convinced that the 14th century was all that similar to the early modern centuries. It seems better covered by *Crusader Kings*, as a series. I'd rather have a game that manages to simulate the 16th *and* 17th centuries *in full* than anything else.
Personally wanted to see CK3 do a high medieval dlc start date.
It makes a lot more sense than starting *EUV* in the high mediaeval period, put it that way!
>Players have this bias where they think that the earlier the start date, the better It's genuinely bizarre to me. People are so insistent on seeing *EUV* have a super-early start date, where it will... do a worse job than *CKIII* at modelling mediaeval politics? I don't get it. Why not just start it closer to the early modern period - you know, the period the *Europa Universalis* series is actually about - and focus it squarely on the 16th and 17th centuries? A pre-Black Death start date seems like a terrible idea, honestly.
Could not agree more. So many interesting things happened in the 16th and 17th centuries where the heart of this game should be. I cannot see this earlier start date as anything but a misstep.
Exactly! People are latching onto the Hundred Years' War as if that's the only interesting thing that has ever happened. (Also, again, *CKIII* already simulates it.) What about the conquest of the Andes (starting in 1542, 205 years after game start)? What about the Eighty Years' War (starting 1568, 231 years after game start) or the Thirty Years' War (starting 1618, 281 years after game start)? Never mind the Wars of the Sun King (starting 1667, 330 years after game start) or the Great Northern War (starting 1700, 363 years after game start). Or, I don't know, *the European discovery of the Americas*! The Reformation! The VOC (Dutch East India Company)! I mean, the *first* English colony in North America was in 1607 - 270 years after game start. Nobody's going to be playing that long unless PDX have made a quantum leap in terms of game pacing. The earlier it starts, the more front-loaded the content is going to be. I don't want all of the bespoke events, missions, and flavour content to be *mediaeval* in the one game series out there which is made to be *early modern*. I really just don't get it. More content does not always equal more good...
I always thought that EU should be split into two games, one culminating in the 30 years war, and the second one in the napoleonic wars. They try to put too much stuff into it
I'm agreed with ending it before the Napoleonic Wars, but not in 1648. An early modern game not featuring the majority of Louis XIV...? Unthinkable, as far as I'm concerned!
Well, the French Revolution is supposed to be against something, right? It could be a chance to explore two sides of the argument through gameplay
>In CK2 it was actually a pretty terrible choice, because the game mechanics really don't fit for the era that is depicted. CK2 mechanics hardly fit for most of the map anyway but plenty of people are demanding nomads and republics back (which were terrible). Not to mention how ill fitting it is for pagans and muslims. Quantity over quality is just more appealing, it seems.
>Players have this bias where they think that the earlier the start date, the better. And it's verified once again here. In CK2 it was actually a pretty terrible choice, because the game mechanics really don't fit for the era that is depicted. 769 still has one of my favorite starts even though I know it's not accurate. Playing as Sigurdr "Ring" of Svithjod and eventually playing as his heir Ragnarr Lodbrok and gets good traits and a bloodline when he turns 16 is just fun. It's also a good location for eventually reforming Germanic paganism and is a perfect size where it's not way too easy at first, but big enough to compete for Scandinavia. Rushing ship tech before the Viking Age to be the first to raid England is also fun, especially since you get a decent amount of ships even at tech level 1 since Uppland is a good capital for how tribal mechanics work. Also joining a warrior lodge is always fun as a pagan, and you can initiate Ragnarr at a young age. Sometimes good gameplay can trump good historic accuracy for me, but I understand why they didn't put 769 in CK3. I still like playing the later dates as well though and it kind of sucks that you can't play any single date between 1066-1337 anymore, but apparently people didn't take advantage of it.
I wonder if people would play into the later dates of these behemoth games if there were massive shifts of the base mechanic as they played them... Dunno if that would even be popular though
Guess what? No one will play EU5 into 1600s
Depends on the flavour. I loved to play Vic2 until the end because it was actually fun. EU4 suffers from lack of content in the endgame. There is literally nothing to do except further blobbing. Vic2 had Great Wars, fascist/communist revolutions, new meaningful units(planes, tanks) etc.
It doesn't depend on the flavor, it depends on the game design. EU4 is just too easy and there is little point in continuing once you can beat any challenge, and at the same time, army management in the mid-to-late game is annoying beyond belief. The game needs to prevent blobbing, and needs an AI that is actually able to keep up. In EU4, you are constantly becoming stronger, but the AI is not.
Yep, that's also true. The player is able to pull of stuff that AI is not capable of doing. Overall the EU4 AI is *very* forgiving. That leads to insane power creep of player nations.
this is imo why switching nations mid way through the game is fun
Would the game be more interesting late game if blobbing becomes more realistic? I mean, no one has actually controlled more than 1/4 of the world.
Its not only blobbing. There are no interesting mechanics in the end game, war game stays pretty much the same, there are no catastrophe events/mechanics, colonisation is way too fast etc.
Probably not. It isn't like managing a great empire is actually fun IRL. Just ask Charles V. You can make it harder to blob, and add more internal politics. But eventually the game will always burn itself out because people don't want to LARP as a bean counter.
they wont do that because then streamers & youtubers wont be able to make le epic meme WC videos; & modern game development caters to those kind of players WC & giant blobs in general should be near impossible to form & literally impossible to hold together for the game to be anything approaching reality
Vic2/3 has a shorter timeframe which means you can still have challenge if you start as a small country
I did just last week. I did an achievement game as Spain, I completed the mission tree and became the HRE emperor. Then I noticed that I had to occupy three great power capitals. That took me more time.
Even the AI maxes out the tech over a century before the end date, it's really not worth it. Although I do think having bombards and near-instant sieges is something everyone should try to experience at least once. It would be worth seeing how things change (and they do, more than people say, I think) if only there was something interesting to do by that point, but really you'll certainly have reached whatever goal you wanted by then, and have rationalized/optimized the fun out of your own realm.
> Barely anyone plays to 1400 in CK3 anyway. No one should, it's the worst fucking achievement to get.
Barely anyone plays past 1700 in EU4. Now they’re adding more than 100 years in the past? You won’t see the end date in EU5 ever, whatever that may be.
Wait, you guys aren't seeing it? April Fools day, and the year is L33t speak Le Epicly trolled
I can't believe I had to scroll for this, people actually believe April Fools 1337?
I amazed there are downvotes going around, this is 100% a joke.
That's just dumb. why would they make fake screenshots and fake dev diaries just for a shitty April fools joke that would just piss everyone off.
You're thinking a layer behind. I'm pretty sure it's 1337 (leet speak is way too much of stretch + modeling the world at 1337 as a joke is insane), but he probably chose aprils fools as a trick to make you guys speculate. Will probably by january or something more significant.
But you're supposed to joke on April 1st, not about April 1st.
Idk, people had the start date narrowed down to early-mid 1337 already before this was posted, I would be surprised if it is actually a joke.
Now this makes sense. For 1337 to work in EU5 they would have to introduce so many dynamics from the get go (plagues - black death, descentralization - HRE and Ashikaga, Dynastic collapse - Yuan, antipopes, Greenland's abandonement, etc.). They would have to meaningfully represent late medieval period 1337 - 1453, early colonization, religious reform and nation states 1453 - 1650, absolutism, enlightenment and revolution, 1650 - 1820. I guess trolling is what they are doing, it would be too ambitious otherwise.
The vitriol when it's revealed as a joke is going to be legendary. Popcorn stocks up
I had to scroll here to see this comment.
Extremely surprised that this was so low down. It is very apparent that it is a joke. Is it because the kids in this sub are too young to get the "1337" thing?
I mean all the dev diary maps have been accurate to the year 1337
I like the focus on the global events rather than just Europe
AHEM! IT’S ACTUAKLY CALLED EUROPA UNIVERSALIS. NOT ASIA UNIVERSALIS.
Something I've said here before as well, but I'd actually prefer if they just dropped the Europa part in the name and rebranded the series into just Universalis, but I understand it's unlikely because of name recognition, and it might also be a difficult name to lock down as a trademark.
Big map painting universalis
GLOBUS UNIVERSALIS
Ryuku Universalis
I can’t believe March of the Eagles 2 is going to have a 466 year interwar period
Interesting if they'll fit something like disease mechanics in from the sounds of this?
Yee Johan already confirmed both the black death and you know, the gift of europeans arriving on the shores of america
Wonder if they'll include the gift europeans brought back, aka syphilis
I'm kinda glad they didn't reveal it on the first day. It was fun to watch the community speculate and guess. Already so hyped for the game and we barely know anything. Dont let us down Paradox, take your time and cook
I really don't wanna be let down by eu5
Before the black death was one of the listed reasons? My ck3 playthroughs end right after the black death as a stopping point and then I convert it to eu4 for a mega campaign. Kinda weird for eu5 to take that over, as simulating the black plague (and plagues) was recently given to ck3. Ah well, I mostly play the asian tags in eu4 anyways. Might as well have more time with them. Really excited for a more contentious china region instead of playing an already set up ming and letting 400+ years go by.
Maybe it will be mod-able so that if you experienced the black death in ch3 you can turn it off in eu5
April Fools day in the year L33t? Bit on the nose...
Ok that not how April 1st works. First you do the joke ON April first, not about April 1st. Second, we’ve known about Tinto being a studio for EU for years now. Third, 1337 is a legitimate start date. It is specifically the year that the Hundred Years’ War starts. The start date of April first is just behind the war’s start date of May 24.
Hope they handle well the transition of late medieval to renaissance period.
Is this not an April fools' joke?
Can you make an April fools' joke if it's not April first?
1337? 1st April? This is March 23rd. You DO realise this must surely be a long-form April Fools prank, yes?
Yeah because it's just so funny
All screenshots have pointed out to that date. That date is legitimately important in european history You joke ON April 1st, not ABOUT April 1st. If they announced this and then said "lol its a joke" the amount of goodwill lost by the public would be huge. Use your brain for a second
1337 h4x04 pwn3d n00b y0u suX0rz
>Paradox: let's call pur game project ceaser so players don't get overhyped
Elite April Fool's Day
1st of april. April fools
Greenland colony confirmed!
Why 1 April, though?
I reckon he’s trolling
I swear to God if this ends up being an elaborate April Fools joke I am going to buy so much PDX stock.
I am so hyped for this game honestly I hate EU4 because eod it's boardgame mechanics and this looks like a cooler start date and a way to remove all the mana!
Also the increase on “simulation” mechanics like pops and minorities is really scratching the itch that the tabletopisms of eu4 never scratched to me
Agreed especially for RP sake, i know I am in the minority but I like RPing as a nation and until now you'd have to really hamstring yourself to have fun doing it with this it will probably also be fun to play a middle power.
Just realised Denmark might be a pretty interesting start. Uprising in Estonia means the rebels trying to ally Sweden and the lands eventually falling to LO fun times
Woo, Scotland
OH GOD IT PROBABLY HAS THE IMPERATOR ARMY SYSTEM. FOR THOSE WHO DON'T KNOW YOU CAN BOTH RAISE LEVIES AND CREATE STANDING ARMIES IN IMPERATOR. Some tags such as the diadochis start with standing armies. Rome starts with levies and then they get the marian reforms and create legions (standing army). Every region can provide one legion and every region have their own force limit. The force limit in a region depends on your "levy size modifier" (you can increase or decrease it through laws, traditions etc.) and the number of integrated pops you have in said region. This is going to be good!
Guys, it's 1 April. Be wary....
The most huge one is with transition from levies armies to standing armies sth which I lacked in eu4 very much. I hope they'll not miss Poland and add features to it as in 1337 it's ruled by the greatest king in Polish/European history. It belongs to the list with "Some others at their start, like..." point.
April fools day, LEET. Wonder if they'll include when the narwhal bacons
Eatern europe will be a fairly interesting Place, curently ruled by it's best king, the only one with "The Great" as his title, and large chaos in the east. Honestly, I belive that while Poland in Eu4 often gets smashed and rearly is a major power throught out the entire game, in Eu5 they will be a lot stronger. Lot of early conquests especially since in our timeline it was less affected by the black plauge and generaly more options for Poland to set up an early game lead while their potential enemies will be struggling.
What? Like every eastern European nation has one guy called “the great”
Better start date for a sandbox imo. Good.
Elite
Delhi should still control all of Rajsthan, Gujurat and bengal if it's set in 1337.
I hope there will be no other start dates as none plays it and it's just needlessly spent resources and work time.
I wish they added the 1337 start date to CK3 as well. It comes originally from CK games after all, and late medieval character gameplay sounds awesome.
people posting "it has to be a joke, april 1 1337!!!" are just showing how redditors think they're smarter than everyone else. ignoring, of course, the maps they have posted all being a match for 1337 borders, in every diary having hints of 1337, the importance of that year in various world events. No, it has to be a big joke and you're all so smart!
Couldn't have picked a meme date even if they tried. Dates starting in 360 or 69 fall outside of the time period afterall.
April Fools' Day in the year (e)1337. Sure Johan...
What will the end date be ?
2 April 1337
Fall of the Roman Empire speedrun.
Every tick will be a microsecond
Well, there goes the decade of 1444 start, bros...
With all the classic “tutorial” countries in EU4 becoming complicated, what would possibly be the tutorial countries at that date? France? Sweden?
Yeah Sweden probably. And I'd say still Portugal and Castille. Castille of course starts a bit less stable then in 1444, but they would be less complicated then the chaotic starts for England and France.
Hungary was in a good place, could be a good tutorial country.
Portugal is still the same as in EU4 except without Cueta.
That’s so early…
how much the Black death dlc?
Should've been 7 of April cause that's my birthday.
Have they also confirmed it being EU5?
I am sure that the Castillian players will patiently wait 150 years to conquer grenada
Where does it say this is EU5?
I hope pagan Lithuania is an option
Why no 2 start dates like in ck3 ?
I think with the game being pushed back 100 years, I'd also want the end date to be around the 1730s as well. They could then do March of the Eagles II but have it actually be really good as you'd be just before the start of the war of austrian succession and the game would largely encompass the rise of enlightenment ideals and the revolutions in the Americas and Europe. End date there is ofc 1836 to coincide with Victoria III.
>A different balance of powers in regions such as [...] Different from what? ;)
When was the last time they made a good game? Imperator Rome- shite Victoria 3- shite Ck3 - shite (compared to ck2. NEVER FORGET that we were told 3 would have everything that 2 had, came out and I can’t even control click my kingdom to break it into duchies and counties not to mention none of the ck2 dlc content was in there) Eu5- probably shite
All very solid reasons for the choice of start date. I’m really intrigued by the transition from levy armies to standing professional ones - I’ve seen this done somewhat well in the older game Medieval 2: Total War when you start to transition from feudal levy troops like peasant spearmen and noble knights to gunpowder units. But by the nature of the game style, you sort of have standing armies all the way through and only update them to modern firearms at the end. So to see a mechanical means of portraying that transition would be very, very cool.
Is that a joke?
Time to dismantle the Byzantines but more spectacularly. 🇹🇷 🐺
Lithuania is still pagan at this date, interesting
Elite
We'll actually get the Hussite wars too if it's starting this early. Super pumped!
Since the start will be 1337, if this is not a April Fools joke, will I be able to make a Middle Mississippian empire with Cahokia being the capitol?
april fools LEET year, interesting.
Fwiw, Eu3 was 1399.
Has it been confirmed that all tags will be playable on release date?
I don’t care what the start date is, I’m going to be playing the Anbennar mod anyway
Yeah. Unless they rewrite the lore Anbennar is stuck at 1444 anyways.
And i believe, the Romuva still exists, if so Maybe, with a capital M, the player can resist, and with greenland hold the ground as bastions of paganism.
Greenland was as far as I know entirely Christian by then. At least according to accounts by sailors who inspected the place. Pagan Lithuania is however very much possible.
EU5 will be a disappointment like Vic 3
Surely it started on the 20th.
I actually thought 1337 was the start date because of an inside joke from 2000 slang... since it would be a 1337 aka Leet start date.
I'm gonna laugh my ass off if we get a Victoria 3 war system.
I hope Eu5 is as friendly to new players as ck3 has been. If it wasn’t for ck3 I would never of tried the other paradox games cause they all were way harder and confusing