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.

[Valmy]

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.

I just want it as an option. The Byzanteens can always play 1337 

And as for a history book...well I also play these games to learn about history and the "History of every country in the world from 1337 to 1836" book doesn't exist anyway.

[Baron von Schtinkenbutt]

I just want it as an option. The Byzanteens can always play 1337 

Unfortunately, multiple start dates don't seem to work now that Paradox has taken the approach of expanding a game for years via DLC and free updates.  I haven't tried the "bookmarks" in EU IV that don't start in 1444, but in HOI 4 for instance the 1939 start has been effectively unplayable for years due to the major changes to the game since release, and the start not having been adjusted to account for them.

[Norgy]

For some reason, the Ottomans were vassals of the Trapezountine Empire in my Byz game.

I was allied to Trebizond and after some decades, Bulgaria, through marriage. Hungary took Wallachia.

My natural reflex with Byzantium is to secure the Balkan hinterlands rather than go fully for Anatolia, but it seems that it is a bad idea. Get the coastline before the Greeks become Turks. While you may lose some battles, there is still quite a lot of levies because the empire is tier 4 and by increasing control and stability, a war might go your way.

Still, rather a rough start.

By the 1400s, much of inner Anatolia will be Turkish and Sunni.

The empire starts with a minus 20 percent morale malus for armies. There are some terrible privileges for every damned estate. Revoking them is costly in every sense of the word. I did manage eventually to remove a few, but with a ruler that is "Idiot", it is not easy.

[Valmy]

I just want it as an option. The Byzanteens can always play 1337 

Unfortunately, multiple start dates don't seem to work now that Paradox has taken the approach of expanding a game for years via DLC and free updates.  I haven't tried the "bookmarks" in EU IV that don't start in 1444, but in HOI 4 for instance the 1939 start has been effectively unplayable for years due to the major changes to the game since release, and the start not having been adjusted to account for them.

Gotcha. Maybe it just is what it is. Maybe future updates will make the major powers more likely to form.

[Norgy]

I just want it as an option. The Byzanteens can always play 1337 

Unfortunately, multiple start dates don't seem to work now that Paradox has taken the approach of expanding a game for years via DLC and free updates.  I haven't tried the "bookmarks" in EU IV that don't start in 1444, but in HOI 4 for instance the 1939 start has been effectively unplayable for years due to the major changes to the game since release, and the start not having been adjusted to account for them.

At least there is a focus tree for Afghanistan, the giant of WW2, if you purchase some DLC.
I don't really get this DLC policy, and I have never started HoI4 in 1939. I did a few Republic of China runs, and now there is new DLC making them even harder to play.

I do believe there will be DLC for EUV. The question, of course, is what type. CK3 got a few new starting dates with DLC, so we shall see.

[The Minsky Moment]

CK2 allowed any start date, which was a great feature. . .

Obviously, the problems with Muscovy and the Ottomans are linked to the start date.  From the standpoint of 1337, there is really no reason to believe those two polities would emerge as great powers.  It is just as likely to have been any of a number of other states.  P-dx is caught between a rock and a hard place: they give some special content to boost them, but not enough so that the AI will reliably bring them to full power.  Give too much, and and it trivializes them for the human player.

[crazy canuck]

I just want it as an option. The Byzanteens can always play 1337 

Unfortunately, multiple start dates don't seem to work now that Paradox has taken the approach of expanding a game for years via DLC and free updates.  I haven't tried the "bookmarks" in EU IV that don't start in 1444, but in HOI 4 for instance the 1939 start has been effectively unplayable for years due to the major changes to the game since release, and the start not having been adjusted to account for them.

Also the resources needed to make multiple start dates didn't make sense since so few players used the alternative dates.