Europa Universalis V confirmed

[crazy canuck]

Why is it a letdown Tamas - and why do you guys want a later start date?  If you want vanilla 1492, just play IV?

First of all if I didn't prefer EU5 over EU4 I'd be playing EU4. But after 400-ish hours I am kind of bored of it.

And the later start date would be better because the trajectory of history was much more set in 1492 than in 1337. This is also an advantage of the 1300s startdate, obviously, but looking at some people discuss their games in the AI modder's Discord shows me that nearly every game Castille eats Portugal but leaves Aragon alone, the Ottomans never go past the western half of Anatolia and bits of Greece, Austria almost never gains any territory, and no Russia emerges, like, ever.

Hopefully these are just AI issues, if SOME regional and world challengers apart from France emerged I'd probably be content even if they are not called Ottomans, Muscovy and Austria. But none of that happens.

Ok, so the letdown is Hungary is not going to face it's historical enemy in your game?  I can understand that 

[Valmy]

Why is it a letdown Tamas - and why do you guys want a later start date?  If you want vanilla 1492, just play IV?

Feels like I explained this already. Are my reasons insufficient or not adequate for some reason?    I mean they might not be good reasons, but I feel like I provided reasons.

I am not sure you can answer for Tamas - he made post saying that discovering that Hungary had a large number of vassal states which made up the bulk of his income was a letdown.  I am not sure why that is.

I wasn't. I was responding to the question posed to 'you guys' of which I consider myself a member 

But fair enough. Vassals take diplomatic weight though, so they can be problematic.

[Josephus]

Why is it a letdown Tamas - and why do you guys want a later start date?  If you want vanilla 1492, just play IV?
]

Yes if I want real history, read a book.

I like everything else about EUV.  But I'd like the option of later start dates. Like you did with all other iterations of this series.

In the other iterations I've always played with the 1492 scenario. It allowed for plenty of alt history, but gave the game a more historical appeal for the era

A game without Russia and Spain, or dominant Ottomans in the Mediterranean just doesn't have the same feel.

Your thoughts may vary

[Sheilbh]

I think it should start in 1453. But part of that is just aesthetic of not thinking CK and EU should overlap

[Baron von Schtinkenbutt]

I think EUIV's start in the immediate aftermath of the Battle of Varna makes sense.  1453 would take Byzantium off the board and piss off all the Byzanteens.

[Tamas]

I didn't discover hungary had lots of vassals I made it so :p and I don't mind it. I was minding the feeble opposition offered by AI countries.

[Tamas]

Why is it a letdown Tamas - and why do you guys want a later start date?  If you want vanilla 1492, just play IV?

First of all if I didn't prefer EU5 over EU4 I'd be playing EU4. But after 400-ish hours I am kind of bored of it.

And the later start date would be better because the trajectory of history was much more set in 1492 than in 1337. This is also an advantage of the 1300s startdate, obviously, but looking at some people discuss their games in the AI modder's Discord shows me that nearly every game Castille eats Portugal but leaves Aragon alone, the Ottomans never go past the western half of Anatolia and bits of Greece, Austria almost never gains any territory, and no Russia emerges, like, ever.

Hopefully these are just AI issues, if SOME regional and world challengers apart from France emerged I'd probably be content even if they are not called Ottomans, Muscovy and Austria. But none of that happens.

Ok, so the letdown is Hungary is not going to face it's historical enemy in your game?  I can understand that 

To a degree yes but not just that if the Mamluks or some other dudes took the ottos place and became a big power at least some times, I would be content. But I have not seen a single evidence of that happening.

[crazy canuck]

Why is it a letdown Tamas - and why do you guys want a later start date?  If you want vanilla 1492, just play IV?

First of all if I didn't prefer EU5 over EU4 I'd be playing EU4. But after 400-ish hours I am kind of bored of it.

And the later start date would be better because the trajectory of history was much more set in 1492 than in 1337. This is also an advantage of the 1300s startdate, obviously, but looking at some people discuss their games in the AI modder's Discord shows me that nearly every game Castille eats Portugal but leaves Aragon alone, the Ottomans never go past the western half of Anatolia and bits of Greece, Austria almost never gains any territory, and no Russia emerges, like, ever.

Hopefully these are just AI issues, if SOME regional and world challengers apart from France emerged I'd probably be content even if they are not called Ottomans, Muscovy and Austria. But none of that happens.

Ok, so the letdown is Hungary is not going to face it's historical enemy in your game?  I can understand that 

To a degree yes but not just that if the Mamluks or some other dudes took the ottos place and became a big power at least some times, I would be content. But I have not seen a single evidence of that happening.

I am not so sure the sample size of what you have seen merits the conclusion that a later start date is necessary if what you want is the formation of a big power at least some times.