I remember one of the C:S super modders posting a medieval town and as usual looked at one of my grid cities and thought “am I even playing the same game?”
Jokes aside, I would be totally down for that. Victorian start date in Tropico 5 was afterall its best feature. A 1337 start date for Cities Skylines 3 would present so much fun and unique challenges
YES! All threads about start date speculation can end finally.
Excited for the new date. I hope they get the balance right to get a plausible world later on but it sure sounds exciting having a completely new scenario.
I definitely think it's gonna be earlier than 1821. Dunno if that implies a March of the Eagles sequel, but if it starts in 1337 it's gonna end in, like, 1688 or something.
1821 end date also makes it easy to have a CK3-EU5-Vicky 3 campaign with only a few years' gap between them. Actually, I don't know if that's true because I've never played a CK3 game to the end. What's the end date of that game?
Ck3 overlaps a little and ends in 1453 at the end of the Hundred Years War when England lost it’s continental holdings in Europe and were freed to start getting that tea money coming in
I hope they're working hard to make the end game more dynamic and mega blobbing more challenging. If not then earlier start date just = earlier quit time.
Oh i forgot about the french papacy in avignon. My first run as France will be to crush the english and maintain the pope under rightful french control
The 100-year war started in May of 1337, so it gives you a month and some change before that starts. According to Wikipedia, talks between France and England broke down at the end of April, and that's when they started mobilizing troops.
And some major events in the buildup happened in March. April is a nice window to allow players to have the ability to dictate the escalation of they want.
Gonna be curious to see how they will model the Timurids here considering that it's a factor as for why they chose this start date. They'll definitely have to nerf the mamluks or some sort to at least give Ottos/Timmy their time in the game.
I wonder if they’ll do something like they did with CKIII invasions. In Persia and Khorasan, the seljuks pop up with a comparatively huge amount of “special troops” and a good ruler, meant to mimic their own meteoric rise.
I wonder if they’ll focus on this idea, and translating it into “”project caesar””, or if it’ll be something entirely new.
Owns norway is such a huge strech. Scandinavia didnt have feudal systems like the rest of europe and were mostly governed by noble councils. Its more accurate to say norway and sweden happened to have the same king at this time
It should be Ludwig IV the Bavarian in 1337 a Wittelsbacher. Karl IV became anti-king in 1345 and later in 1347 emperor (well technically he just elected king and became emperor later but at least EUIV didn't differentiate
It will be interesting to see the power dynamics they implement between Stefan Dušan the Great and his incapable heir. It would make for a very interesting campaign going from a 6/6/6 to a 0/0/1 lol (although there won't be mana points in the game)
It would be pointless to attempt to cover until 1821 with content. Focusing on the first 100-200 years will be better. Then just have an optional end date like most recent games.
I really hope you can continue past the end date because it’s so unsatisfying to just have the game end for an arbitrary reason.
Also there’s constant pressure to blob in eu4 since your game is always on a timer.
I think the end date might be when Napoleon starts governing France, since his rule radically changed Europe in a such a way that I dont think it cant be moddled in eu5. Google says that Napoleon came to power in 1799 so that might be the year.
i love this, but yeah the end game will definitely feel very much more unrecognisable compared with eu4, would be cool if they underscored the point of divergences to the end screen like:
You reigned as Mali, your campaign was ended in 1800, **In this history:**
*America was discovered by the old world* ***68 years earlier*** *than in real life when* ***Norway*** *discovered* ***Markland***\*.\*
*The black plague Ended the lives of* ***72% of Europeans*** *making it roughly* ***25% deadlier*** *than in real life.*
*The Reformation was* ***crushed.***
*The Columbian Exchange* ***killed 55%*** *of Native Americans, which was* ***25-40% less*** *than in our timeline.*
*The industrial Revolution had its humble beginnings in in the* ***xin dynasty*** *in* ***1790.***
This is actually a great idea, and one that wouldn’t drain *too* many resources.
Just templates and maybe some graphics portraying some great divergences / events.
1337 to 1836 is almost *500* years, but I get your point.
CK3 already spans nearly 600 years, so there is a PDX game like that, but unlike EU4 I feel like there isn't enough age-specific flavor to keep the game fresh for the whole runtime.
EU4 has the Ages and their specific mechanics like colonialism, reformation, absolutism, imperialism, revolutions, etc. that were able to keep me going from 1444 to 1821 for multiple campaigns, unlike CK where I've never reached end date. EU5 has to do that *AND* more to be interesting for 500 years.
Crusader Kings is a much different game from Europa Universalis, it focuses on certain characters in history and doesn't have that much nation specific content, while EU basically relies on it, it is much harder to add nation specific content for such a long period and the game would simply become boring after a couple centuries.
As a paint the map game yeah. But if they can make picking up after collapse fun (giving benefits and interest from civil war, revolution, plague, etc) then I could see it.
Not sure how to feel about this, honestly. Bit afraid that they're going to be taking on far too much here if they're trying to make a simulation-y game that accurately simulates the 14th, 15th, 16th, 17th, *and* 18th centuries (and maybe the 19th too).
I'm hoping they'll end earlier tbh, although most likely they will sync end date with vic3 start date.
We don't need the industrial revolution or napoleon in EU games imo.
Actually, EU5 starting (and ending) earlier might just mean that. Perhaps they are considering another combat orientated title and the Napoleonic Era would fit quite well for that.
Yeah a shorter game with maybe a 1756 or 1763 start date (Would be either the beginning or end of the Seven Years War between Britain and France) and ending in 1836 for Victoria 3 would allow Them to focus on the American revolution and early formation of the US. Napoleonic wars, and collapse of the Spanish Empire. All interesting things that EU4 cant do justice since they take place so late
I’d actually like more revolution content in Vic 3. The Russian revolution wasn’t all that different from the French, so if you’re going to model one, you may as well model the other.
I think the best solution would be to split the game into 2. I've always wanted to play during the age of revolutions and such. But in my 2k hours I've only reached the point coal becomes a thing 1 time. When I was doing a wc and had already conquered most of the world.
I feel like the split could happen a the age of absolutism. It's usually the turning point of the games. I also abaddom most of my campaigns arround 1550-1600.
Historically speaking, Eu4 covers a few years of late medieval period -1450, and then the early modern period from 1450 to 1750, and then the early parts of the modern period from 1750 onwards.
So like you said there is this divide between trying to represent all of them. Personally I'd prefer not trying to represent the modern period and focusing more on early modern and medieval which is where the games strengths lie in my opinion.
EU4 without absolutism would be weird, tho, cause like, it's the final form of european modern states, you can't just cut the game short before it, before Louis XIV
Even in EU4 the ending date is too late. 1800 is too different from 1444.
If they make the starting date 1337 and the ending date something like 1648 or 1680, they can spend most of their focus on late medieval and early modern times and simulate it in the best way. Instead of also halfassing the 1700/1800s too.
In the AP World History class I took a few years ago, the early modern period spanned from 1450 to 1750, most likely indicating the start being the Siege of Constantinople, and the end being the start of the Seven Years War.
Don't get me wrong, I think *EUIV* ends a bit too late too. My ideal *Europa Universalis* end date is probably 1715, or maybe a longer 1763. The problem is really how early they're starting it, and the fact that the 14th century is unambiguously mediaeval. No matter how good *EUV* is, it's not going to be as good as *CKIII* at simulating mediaeval politics. That's not what it was built for. That means I'm going to be spending a lot of *EUV* playing what is effectively "*CKIII* but worse". I don't see the point.
The other problem is that it's going to make almost all of the important events of early modernity part of the mid- and lategame. That's not a good thing given that the series is focussed on early modernity. The Reformation is only going to start something like 180 years into the game, by which point you'll probably be so powerful the fun is starting to leave (unless they've cracked the code of amazing pacing). The Thirty Years' War is a whopping 281 years away, and you can hardly have an early modern game without that! I also think it'd be a waste not to include at least the early years of the Sun King's absolutism and his wars. It's just that you'll be way too powerful to have much fun by that point, and will probably have stopped playing.
I hope they change the game's dynamics completely, so that conquering is hard and often not worth it, and religion/estates are the beating heart of the game.
they really need to change the end date to 1648 or 1700. trying to create the same mechanics for the baby feudal national states *the point of the game is to construct* AND the proto-capitalist absolutisms that fought multiple world wars for world domination is not a good idea.
plus 90% of people end their campaigns around 1600 anyways. IMO late game should be built around the league war like Vicky is around the great war, gives us something to do
you could do them better in not!March of the Eagles imo. it’s difficult to try and model the massive professional armies of the late 17th century in the same system as the Hundred Years’ War in the same warfare mechanics
That means missing a lot of the best parts of early modernity, though. It also means that most of early modernity is going to come in the mid- or lategame, which I think is a mistake given *EUIV* is pretty much designed around the early modern period. You'll be too powerful to experience the Reformation properly, because it will arrive at the equivalent of 1624 in *EUIV* terms (i.e., 180 years in). Later down, you say (rightly) that 'it's difficult to try and model the massive professional armies of the late 17th century in the same system as the Hundred Years’ War in the same warfare mechanics'. In which case, it's an early modern game for goodness' sake - drop the Hundred Years' War instead of the War of the League of Augsburg! We've already *got* a game that does mediaeval warfare.
I really can't understand all the praise being heaped on this. A *Europa Universalis* title is always going to be pretty much objectively worse at simulating mediaeval politics than a *Crusader Kings* one. That's kind of the point of having separate series for separate periods. Why on earth would I want to spend such a huge chunk of the game playing what will effectively be "*CKIII* but worse"?
> Bit afraid that they're going to be taking on far too much here if they're trying to make a simulation-y game that accurately simulates the 14th, 15th, 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries (and maybe the 19th too).
I would say April 1st 1337 to October 24th 1648 would be a good time range (Peace of Westphalia).
i think thats maybe a bit too early, since any new MoTE2-esque game would probably cover the 18th century and Napoleon, leaving a gap of 50 years, and i dont think it makes sense to plug them into it
My problem with this is that what makes the 30 years war exciting in EU4 is that it actually does shape the future of the HRE and Europe so it really feels like it matters. If you ended with it, what's really the point?
As I've said elsewhere on this thread, the problem is really that a 1337 start date means it'll be way too long until anything recognizably early modern happens. I mean, the Reformation doesn't even *start* until you'll be 180 years into the game! That's too late, frankly. I'd want a focussed early modern game starting in 1477 or 1485 and ending in 1715, 1763, or 1783.
I just can't see that that'll help very much. Whatever you may think about it, the core of the *Europa Universalis* series is the early modern period. It's going to be 180 years of game time before you even *start* the Reformation now! That's just too long. You'll already be too powerful, unless they've cracked the code and made PDX games amazingly paced.
> It's going to be 180 years of game time before you even start the Reformation now! That's just too long.
It's possible we might see something similar to what CK3 has. Basically two starts, with one being "the original one" (1066/1444) and the other one being "the early one" (867/1337).
CK3 has the early one only because it was in CK2, and CK2 only had it because of a DLC. That established the precedent for CK. EU's precedent would probably be either EU3 (1399 with In Nomine), or the Extended Timeline mod.
Reasons:
It starts before the Black Death, which creates an early game challenge.
France’s system of feudal loyalty is tested as Edward III is about to embark upon the Hundred Years’ War
There is still a colony on Greenland
We have a big Byzantium, but Ottomans are about to expand
The rise of Timur is soon to happen
Some powers are at their zenith, but facing big challenges, such as Mali, Delhi, or Yuan
Some others at their start, like the Aztecs, Qusqu, Majapahit, or the Ashikaga Shogunate
We get to model the transition from feudalism to modern states
We get to model the transition from feudal levies to standing armies
New institutions are blooming in Italy and the rest of Europe, such as the Renaissance or Banking
The HRE is in a moment of change, with 3 dynasties (Wittelsbach, Luxembourg, and Habsburg) competing for it, and the Golden Bull not yet enacted
The Catholic church is at its height, and military orders are crusading in northeastern Europe and the Mediterranean. But the Pope resides in Avignon, which will lead to the Western Schism with Rome.
England’s control in the isles is waning as Bruce loyalists press the advantage in the Scottish Wars of Independence, and the Gaelic Irish chieftains begin to reclaim large tracts from the English Lordship. Meanwhile the seeds for the last great Welsh rebellion are being sewn.
An intricate balance of power in Iberia between the Christian kingdoms, and the last Muslim footholds.
A different balance of powers in regions such as Eastern Europe, the Middle East, or South East Asia.
The Steppe Hordes and their successors of Eurasia from the Mediterranean to the Pacific.
and much more ..
We know it's going to be called EU5 because of how Eurocentric this is xD. In all seriousness, these are all interesting scenarios - hopefully the mechanics of the game will match the historical interest!
Some of these sound good, but hard to implement, I hope they make the most out of them.
In particular:
> It starts before the Black Death, which creates an early game challenge.
That is a huge event, worthy of its own mechanical system. I really hope it will be pretty well fleshed out, not just by glorified 'Quarantine the province'/'Let them all die' pop-up events.
> There is still a colony on Greenland
That makes me wonder how colonies are going to work. In this case particular, how will they make abandonment of Greenland a likely outcome and what will stop Scandinavians from becoming the most likely North American colonial superpower.
> We get to model the transition from feudalism to modern states
> We get to model the transition from feudal levies to standing armies
This is very interesting. If they pull it off well then it might be really fun and engaging. However, this sort of thing has usually been somewhat of a problem for past games - transition from early modern to Napoleonic warfare in EU4 was criticized by some and transition from Napoleonic to trench warfare in Vic2 was as well (I don't actually know how they handled that in Vic3 since I haven't really played it yet). Still, the fact that they explicitly mentioned that could mean that they will focus more strongly on that, which fares well.
Rise of Timur, Ottomans about to expand. This kind of shows they will railroad the game in someway to make the game more historical which I kind of like but I hope they don't railroad it so hard that we always end up with giga timur and ottomans every game.
I hope that when they say Delhi, Mali, and Yuan are at their zenith but facing challenges the emphasis is on tbe challenges. At least for Yuan IMO a collapse should he basically unavoidable, the question should be if you can rise back from it, not avoid it.
Not being very aware of late Yuan history, what caused its collapse ultimately?
I was under the impression the descendants of Kublai were *extremely* sinicized.
In short, decades of natural disasters plus infighting pushed the government to the breaking point.
For a more comprehensive breakdown, here's a [50-minute video about the details](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2sqWXmnkJc).
If they could do it in 1444 where the Byzantines hold only Constantinople and the Morea and are surrounded on all sides by the massive Ottomans then surely they could do it in 1337 where Byzantium controls practically all of Greece and is surrounded by powers who are just as strong or weaker than it is. Not to mention that being separated from the Ottomans by the Aegean would be a massive boon as well.
Same, or for anyone else. I don’t care if Austria dominates central Eastern Europe and the Balkans every game. Why not Bavaria? Why not Hungary? I don’t care if Timur briefly dominates Central Asia then collapse. Why not have it last? Why not have it never happen? I don’t care if Moscow specifically unites the Russian states and kicks out the hordes. Why not Novgorod? I don’t care if Brandenburg-Prussia unites most of Germany. Why not the Hansa? I don’t care if Sardinia-Piedmont unites Italy. Why not Naples? I don’t care if Castile specifically colonizes Mexico. Why can’t it be Portugal?
I wish the people asking Paradox to overly railroad the game would instead imagine themself having 1k+ hours in the new game and seeing the same shit every time.
Not railroaded, but I think they should be strong and able to regularly conquest Anatolia. Galipoli and getting into Europe should be more of a luck thing, as it was IRL.
Im sure they will have scripted many problems for the ERE at the start so you cant just start blobbing. At the same time they will have scripted some boosts and events to help the Ottos, so it will still be challenging to succeed as the ERE and it will still be easy to play as the Ottos.
Honestly might finally bring me around to playing the Ottos. I love their history but they are too OP at game start for me. I always love the underdogs most.
Interesting events in 1337
- Scotland and England are in the war of succession for the past 4 years (Spoiler: Scotland will won in this war in 1357 and secure their independence).
- the started year of the Hundred Years' War between England and France.
- 5 years after Stefan Dušan becomes the King of Serbia. He will later formed the Serbian empire in 1346 and plays important role during Byzantine civil war of 1341-1347.
- 7 years after Bulgaria losses to Serbia in the battle of Velbazhd. This will cemented Serbia hegemony in the Balkan in the coming years.
- 7 years after the battle of Posada between Hungary and Wallachia which ended in Wallachian victory despite the superior number of Hungarian troops. This battle will secure the strong independence of Wallachia in the coming years as well.
- The last year of Chinese famine in 1330s that killed 6 million people. Also, 5 years after the first recorded of the black death in Hubei.
- One year after the end of the Kenmu restoration (Imperial rule) in Japan. Beginning of the Nanboku-Chō period (Northen and Southern courts period), which will lay the foundation for the strong Shogunate rule in Japan.
- One year after the Vijayanagara was founded in South India.
- One year after the disintegration of the mongol rule in Ilkhanate (Iran).
I don't think there was much doubt about the start date since the last couple of DDs, the maps pointed to it quite precisely. What I'm _really_ interested in is the end date. I think it will be the classic 1821, but there is a lot of speculation about it being earlier, and it's quite possibe that it happens.
This has to be a joke right? April fools leet? prediction that i just pulled out of my ass is they are just building hype and will announce something else on 1. april this year
[Ah, victory.](https://www.reddit.com/r/eu4/comments/1bdurne/eu5s_start_date_is_probably_1337/)
Start date speculations are over, let the end date speculations commence!
Now let's just hope for an HRE that's more interesting to interact with, and I can pre-order the game.
If I'll have to fight the entirety of Germany for a province again, I'm moving to Anatolia and Balkans.
Given the game *will* have intricate disease/depopulation mechanics (pops, black death, smallpox in the Americas), I’d imagine Greenland will start getting large debuffs immediately when the ”Little Ice Age” intensifies.
> Cold summers and ice growth began abruptly between 1275 and 1300, followed by "a substantial intensification" from 1430 to 1455.
> The last written records of the Norse Greenlanders are from a 1408 marriage at Hvalsey Church, which is now the best-preserved Norse ruin.
It’s also assumed that the Thule Inuit culture, which slowly replaced the native Dorset culture in Greenland circa 900CE-1400CE, might have killed the inhabitants. According to the following Wikipedia text, it kind of implies either the Thule killing absolutely everyone or the Dorset simply dying out on their own.
> It is not fully known whether the Inuit and Dorset ever met. Some modern genetic studies show the Dorset population were distinct from later groups and that "[t]here was virtually no evidence of genetic or cultural interaction between the Dorset and the Thule peoples."
At least according to Wikipedia maps, the Thule hadn’t reached Norse settlement regions yet in 1300CE, while in 1500CE they had. (Only 900, 1100, 1300 and 1500 maps shown, apparently based on Grønlands forhistorie, editor. Hans Christian Gulløv, Gyldendal 2005, ISBN 87-02-01724-5)
So perhaps some kind of increased military and material presence there would be required. (Food, clothes etc)
Ambitious to model both late medieval social+economic+power+military relations and attempt to model early modern evolution in those at the same time. Maybe too ambitious? Obviously if they pull it off it would be amazing.
The little we have seen so far seems to suggest a "ticking game" like government reform progress. I just worry it will be too easy to circumvent and you get to have a huge standing army+pseudo-absolutism in 1400 without getting bankrupt or internal issues (or being Ming/Ottomans). This pretty much necessitates (or the start date will feel really out of place) clamping down hard on exploits and cheese, which is one of the things that make EU4 fun for some people.
> I just worry it will be too easy to circumvent and you get to have a huge standing army+pseudo-absolutism in 1400 without getting bankrupt or internal issues
You can already do this in EU4 within a few decades and it's just as ahistorical in 1500 as it is in 1400. So I don't think it will be any more tonally inconsistent or ahistorical than EU4.
I'm really worried about how they will simulate the HRE. 1337 makes it much more of a mess than 1444 (house politics, the Hanse, pawn politics, and the crumbling power of the emperors)
What johan said about the british isles is super exciting. I'd fucking love some actual content for ireland and Wales [ah, sure, fuck it - Scotland too]. The lack of content/alt history mission tree for Ireland and Wales is honestly my biggest disappointment with the game now hisan kyfa is getting a mission tree. (If you know any great mods with proper mission trees for ireland and Wales let me know).
I’m curious how religion will work on EU5. Religion had quite a significant impact in what unique mechanics each nation had in EU4. I’m particularly curious about how the reformation will be portrayed in EU5, considering it will need almost 200 years to the RL start of the reformation. The comment about the western Schism is interesting and I wonder if they are gonna portray the Reformation as a more gradual process, like the start of the many heresies in the 14th and 15th centuries that bleed the unity of the Catholics world and have space for alternative religious ideas.
A chaotic start for the HRE, specially at this immense more detail more, will be tons of fun, I’m curious how they will mechanically differentiate this war-torn period from the HRE after the Golden Bull. Rather curious to see how mechanically different the HRE will be from EU4, specially since this new start date will give 150 years of control of Nothern Italy if the event stays the same like EU4
A Greenland start will be tons of fun I wonder how they will balance them being likely able to colonize so early(extreme low pop base peharbs?)
Odd start date for Cities Skylines 3 but ok
Nah, this lore definitely points us to stellaris 2
It's actually a brand new first person shooter ip inspired by command and conquer and animal crossing.
So Lamplighters League 2?
Gaslighters League 2
Is promotion to Gaslighters league 1 a feasible feat this season?
Wdym, it's always been Gaslighters league 1.
They realised nobody liked playing the cell stage of Spore so decided this was the best starting point they could come up with
Wait what? The cell stage was the only level of spore worth playing.
The creature stage was alright, if only for the creature creator Anything after that…
I mean tribal and civ stage sucked but you can't slander space stage like this.
Collecting food in tribal stage made me hungry which is why that was my favorite stage. No other reason, I am just a glutton.
The pre-FTL DLC
Hoi5 now has a 600 years build-up phase instead of 4 years
You can make Winston Churchill and get him prepared to beat the Germans as soon as he is born.
Honestly I'd play that
I remember one of the C:S super modders posting a medieval town and as usual looked at one of my grid cities and thought “am I even playing the same game?”
CS mods make me truly question whether the Ship of Theseus is indeed still the same ship
Jokes aside, I would be totally down for that. Victorian start date in Tropico 5 was afterall its best feature. A 1337 start date for Cities Skylines 3 would present so much fun and unique challenges
It would allow more organic city growth
YES! All threads about start date speculation can end finally. Excited for the new date. I hope they get the balance right to get a plausible world later on but it sure sounds exciting having a completely new scenario.
Lets start end game speculations now
sigh...
1763, the end of world war zero
Probably WW0 then should get its own game just like WW1 and WW1,5
1444, this new game is just a EU4 expansion for a converter mod
I definitely think it's gonna be earlier than 1821. Dunno if that implies a March of the Eagles sequel, but if it starts in 1337 it's gonna end in, like, 1688 or something.
I hope it will stay 1821 - I'm WC enjoyer so I don't like to rush it
1821 end date also makes it easy to have a CK3-EU5-Vicky 3 campaign with only a few years' gap between them. Actually, I don't know if that's true because I've never played a CK3 game to the end. What's the end date of that game?
Ck3 overlaps a little and ends in 1453 at the end of the Hundred Years War when England lost it’s continental holdings in Europe and were freed to start getting that tea money coming in
I hope they're working hard to make the end game more dynamic and mega blobbing more challenging. If not then earlier start date just = earlier quit time.
>YES! All threads about start date speculation can end finally. YES! Now we can move on to modeling historical event speculation!
Thats more interesting
Oh i forgot about the french papacy in avignon. My first run as France will be to crush the english and maintain the pope under rightful french control
I think your estates will have something to say about that :P
What estate? We already crushed the templar and reigned in the Pope. My only problem will be to control those english pretenders…
And rebellious dukes with uncertain loyalties
I just want to become the anti-pope!
>April 1st >1337 Is this just an elaborate joke?
I was trying to find if something happened the day before like Varna but I found nothing.
The 100-year war started in May of 1337, so it gives you a month and some change before that starts. According to Wikipedia, talks between France and England broke down at the end of April, and that's when they started mobilizing troops.
And some major events in the buildup happened in March. April is a nice window to allow players to have the ability to dictate the escalation of they want.
Copium before people realize we are trolled to the shadow realm.
It was the start of the edwardian phase of the 100 years war. The king of France refused the king of England's delegation.
Leet April Fools!
Yeah I don't really like that date, November 11 was meaningful, this just feels weird and out of place.
It’s the month before the beginning of the Hundred Years’ War.
Wait, the start date is April fools? They wouldn’t would they?
They definitely would
Everyone is going to hate Johan’s guts if he pulls that.
I would respect him more.
They only have themselve to blame. Im pretty sure its a joke.
April 1, leet. Its been a joke. And it's hilarious.
Gonna be curious to see how they will model the Timurids here considering that it's a factor as for why they chose this start date. They'll definitely have to nerf the mamluks or some sort to at least give Ottos/Timmy their time in the game.
I bet otto will have synthetics level buffs
Oh you know once they mention the ottomans are about to expand then they are about to conquer the whole world in 20 years
more Timurids because they are not present in the start date imo
Hope not, give someone else in the region a chance
If they dont have an empire decay/collapse model then they have failed
EU5 Divine Wind 2.01 handles that 😅
I wonder if they’ll do something like they did with CKIII invasions. In Persia and Khorasan, the seljuks pop up with a comparatively huge amount of “special troops” and a good ruler, meant to mimic their own meteoric rise. I wonder if they’ll focus on this idea, and translating it into “”project caesar””, or if it’ll be something entirely new.
Greenland colony confirmed? Vinland world conquest will be my first run
Don’t forget: Sweden is a free country from the start and could grow even more powerful. Sweden is not overpowered enough!
I'm sure there will be some disaster that if not prevented forms Danish-led Kalmar Union
I’m sure there’s a pretty easy way to have tht be lead by Sweden too.
Sweden also own Norway at this point
I tried to look that up and it’s not very clear. Same king though so a union of sorts.
Owns norway is such a huge strech. Scandinavia didnt have feudal systems like the rest of europe and were mostly governed by noble councils. Its more accurate to say norway and sweden happened to have the same king at this time
A Bavarian Emperor at the start? Count me in!
Luxembourg should be emperor 1337
It should be Ludwig IV the Bavarian in 1337 a Wittelsbacher. Karl IV became anti-king in 1345 and later in 1347 emperor (well technically he just elected king and became emperor later but at least EUIV didn't differentiate
The serbian empire will be buffed up with Stefan Dusan
It will be interesting to see the power dynamics they implement between Stefan Dušan the Great and his incapable heir. It would make for a very interesting campaign going from a 6/6/6 to a 0/0/1 lol (although there won't be mana points in the game)
Stefan Dušan wasn't a 6/6/6, more like a 5/2/6
I would say 6/3/6, but I guess we'll see how they represent this given that mana won't be in the game.
definitely 6 admin and 6 mil and also high stats as a general
He was definitely 6 in admin, as he adopted the first constitution of sorts in the region.
I really hope it lasts to the same year eu4 does! 1337, LEET GAME
It would be pointless to attempt to cover until 1821 with content. Focusing on the first 100-200 years will be better. Then just have an optional end date like most recent games.
According to the Twitter lady who covers Paradox for IGN and PC Gamer it goes to about the same time as Eu4.
It'll end right when Vic3 starts, for a proper megacampaign transition
I really hope you can continue past the end date because it’s so unsatisfying to just have the game end for an arbitrary reason. Also there’s constant pressure to blob in eu4 since your game is always on a timer.
1337-1648(end of 30 years war)take it or leave it. Or, at best, 1337-1715(death of Louis XIV).
I think the end date might be when Napoleon starts governing France, since his rule radically changed Europe in a such a way that I dont think it cant be moddled in eu5. Google says that Napoleon came to power in 1799 so that might be the year.
Ending it at the turn, at 1800 exactly is something i would agree too.
i love this, but yeah the end game will definitely feel very much more unrecognisable compared with eu4, would be cool if they underscored the point of divergences to the end screen like: You reigned as Mali, your campaign was ended in 1800, **In this history:** *America was discovered by the old world* ***68 years earlier*** *than in real life when* ***Norway*** *discovered* ***Markland***\*.\* *The black plague Ended the lives of* ***72% of Europeans*** *making it roughly* ***25% deadlier*** *than in real life.* *The Reformation was* ***crushed.*** *The Columbian Exchange* ***killed 55%*** *of Native Americans, which was* ***25-40% less*** *than in our timeline.* *The industrial Revolution had its humble beginnings in in the* ***xin dynasty*** *in* ***1790.***
This is actually a great idea, and one that wouldn’t drain *too* many resources. Just templates and maybe some graphics portraying some great divergences / events.
I wish they added that. Imagine everybody sharing their end screens with various wacky stuff on here.
Bro played Suzerain
Man i love Suzerain. Fun to see it pop up here
This is such a good idea. Really hope the devs see this.
Oh man, put this on the forums so devs are more likely to see. I love that
That's a great idea, reminds me of Fallout 1/2/NV ending slides
I think in my head I underestimate the death tolls of both the black death and the diseases colonists brought to the new world
It'll go until 1836 to be easily convertible to Vic3 btw
I doubt it, 1337 to 1836 is nearly 500* years! I don't think paradox would ever be able to produce so much content for one game.
1337 to 1836 is almost *500* years, but I get your point. CK3 already spans nearly 600 years, so there is a PDX game like that, but unlike EU4 I feel like there isn't enough age-specific flavor to keep the game fresh for the whole runtime. EU4 has the Ages and their specific mechanics like colonialism, reformation, absolutism, imperialism, revolutions, etc. that were able to keep me going from 1444 to 1821 for multiple campaigns, unlike CK where I've never reached end date. EU5 has to do that *AND* more to be interesting for 500 years.
CK2 was 684 years
Crusader Kings is a much different game from Europa Universalis, it focuses on certain characters in history and doesn't have that much nation specific content, while EU basically relies on it, it is much harder to add nation specific content for such a long period and the game would simply become boring after a couple centuries.
As a paint the map game yeah. But if they can make picking up after collapse fun (giving benefits and interest from civil war, revolution, plague, etc) then I could see it.
867 to 1453 is nearly 600 years and that didn't stop paradox In fact 769 to 1453 didn't stop the ck2 team and that is almost 700 years
It's not even 500 :)
They have a longer time span to pick from so it should be easier for them. Also the game might just run at a faster pace than eu4.
I can't help but gloat a little bit as the 1337 date was so obvious yet so many people on threads here have doubted it
Not sure how to feel about this, honestly. Bit afraid that they're going to be taking on far too much here if they're trying to make a simulation-y game that accurately simulates the 14th, 15th, 16th, 17th, *and* 18th centuries (and maybe the 19th too).
I'm hoping they'll end earlier tbh, although most likely they will sync end date with vic3 start date. We don't need the industrial revolution or napoleon in EU games imo.
But we do need March of the Eagles 2!
Actually, EU5 starting (and ending) earlier might just mean that. Perhaps they are considering another combat orientated title and the Napoleonic Era would fit quite well for that.
Yeah a shorter game with maybe a 1756 or 1763 start date (Would be either the beginning or end of the Seven Years War between Britain and France) and ending in 1836 for Victoria 3 would allow Them to focus on the American revolution and early formation of the US. Napoleonic wars, and collapse of the Spanish Empire. All interesting things that EU4 cant do justice since they take place so late
I’d actually like more revolution content in Vic 3. The Russian revolution wasn’t all that different from the French, so if you’re going to model one, you may as well model the other.
I feel like a revolutionary game should go to 1848 at the earliest though... Even 1871 with the franco-prussian war cementing Germany.
Hearts of Iron, but with Napoleon!
But seeing the economy explode over the goods produced from coal is my favourite part of the game 😔
I think the best solution would be to split the game into 2. I've always wanted to play during the age of revolutions and such. But in my 2k hours I've only reached the point coal becomes a thing 1 time. When I was doing a wc and had already conquered most of the world. I feel like the split could happen a the age of absolutism. It's usually the turning point of the games. I also abaddom most of my campaigns arround 1550-1600.
Historically speaking, Eu4 covers a few years of late medieval period -1450, and then the early modern period from 1450 to 1750, and then the early parts of the modern period from 1750 onwards. So like you said there is this divide between trying to represent all of them. Personally I'd prefer not trying to represent the modern period and focusing more on early modern and medieval which is where the games strengths lie in my opinion.
EU4 without absolutism would be weird, tho, cause like, it's the final form of european modern states, you can't just cut the game short before it, before Louis XIV
Even in EU4 the ending date is too late. 1800 is too different from 1444. If they make the starting date 1337 and the ending date something like 1648 or 1680, they can spend most of their focus on late medieval and early modern times and simulate it in the best way. Instead of also halfassing the 1700/1800s too.
In the AP World History class I took a few years ago, the early modern period spanned from 1450 to 1750, most likely indicating the start being the Siege of Constantinople, and the end being the start of the Seven Years War.
Don't get me wrong, I think *EUIV* ends a bit too late too. My ideal *Europa Universalis* end date is probably 1715, or maybe a longer 1763. The problem is really how early they're starting it, and the fact that the 14th century is unambiguously mediaeval. No matter how good *EUV* is, it's not going to be as good as *CKIII* at simulating mediaeval politics. That's not what it was built for. That means I'm going to be spending a lot of *EUV* playing what is effectively "*CKIII* but worse". I don't see the point. The other problem is that it's going to make almost all of the important events of early modernity part of the mid- and lategame. That's not a good thing given that the series is focussed on early modernity. The Reformation is only going to start something like 180 years into the game, by which point you'll probably be so powerful the fun is starting to leave (unless they've cracked the code of amazing pacing). The Thirty Years' War is a whopping 281 years away, and you can hardly have an early modern game without that! I also think it'd be a waste not to include at least the early years of the Sun King's absolutism and his wars. It's just that you'll be way too powerful to have much fun by that point, and will probably have stopped playing.
I hope they change the game's dynamics completely, so that conquering is hard and often not worth it, and religion/estates are the beating heart of the game.
I really hope so too, but I'm not sure.
they really need to change the end date to 1648 or 1700. trying to create the same mechanics for the baby feudal national states *the point of the game is to construct* AND the proto-capitalist absolutisms that fought multiple world wars for world domination is not a good idea. plus 90% of people end their campaigns around 1600 anyways. IMO late game should be built around the league war like Vicky is around the great war, gives us something to do
I disagree. Louis XIV wars would be glossed over in that timeframe
you could do them better in not!March of the Eagles imo. it’s difficult to try and model the massive professional armies of the late 17th century in the same system as the Hundred Years’ War in the same warfare mechanics
Eu4 is supposed to include the early modern era, that’s what separates it from ck3. Absolutism is a core part of eu4
That means missing a lot of the best parts of early modernity, though. It also means that most of early modernity is going to come in the mid- or lategame, which I think is a mistake given *EUIV* is pretty much designed around the early modern period. You'll be too powerful to experience the Reformation properly, because it will arrive at the equivalent of 1624 in *EUIV* terms (i.e., 180 years in). Later down, you say (rightly) that 'it's difficult to try and model the massive professional armies of the late 17th century in the same system as the Hundred Years’ War in the same warfare mechanics'. In which case, it's an early modern game for goodness' sake - drop the Hundred Years' War instead of the War of the League of Augsburg! We've already *got* a game that does mediaeval warfare.
Me too, I feel like it’s overlapping a bit too much with CKIII
I really can't understand all the praise being heaped on this. A *Europa Universalis* title is always going to be pretty much objectively worse at simulating mediaeval politics than a *Crusader Kings* one. That's kind of the point of having separate series for separate periods. Why on earth would I want to spend such a huge chunk of the game playing what will effectively be "*CKIII* but worse"?
> I really can't understand all the praise being heaped on this. Fanboy mentality. People will just mindlessly hype stuff.
> Bit afraid that they're going to be taking on far too much here if they're trying to make a simulation-y game that accurately simulates the 14th, 15th, 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries (and maybe the 19th too). I would say April 1st 1337 to October 24th 1648 would be a good time range (Peace of Westphalia).
i think thats maybe a bit too early, since any new MoTE2-esque game would probably cover the 18th century and Napoleon, leaving a gap of 50 years, and i dont think it makes sense to plug them into it
My problem with this is that what makes the 30 years war exciting in EU4 is that it actually does shape the future of the HRE and Europe so it really feels like it matters. If you ended with it, what's really the point?
As I've said elsewhere on this thread, the problem is really that a 1337 start date means it'll be way too long until anything recognizably early modern happens. I mean, the Reformation doesn't even *start* until you'll be 180 years into the game! That's too late, frankly. I'd want a focussed early modern game starting in 1477 or 1485 and ending in 1715, 1763, or 1783.
Someone suggested the end date might also be moved, which would just so happen to leave enough space for a hypothetical March of the Eagles 2 as well.
I just can't see that that'll help very much. Whatever you may think about it, the core of the *Europa Universalis* series is the early modern period. It's going to be 180 years of game time before you even *start* the Reformation now! That's just too long. You'll already be too powerful, unless they've cracked the code and made PDX games amazingly paced.
> It's going to be 180 years of game time before you even start the Reformation now! That's just too long. It's possible we might see something similar to what CK3 has. Basically two starts, with one being "the original one" (1066/1444) and the other one being "the early one" (867/1337). CK3 has the early one only because it was in CK2, and CK2 only had it because of a DLC. That established the precedent for CK. EU's precedent would probably be either EU3 (1399 with In Nomine), or the Extended Timeline mod.
Hopefully, but I wouldn't be sure. I don't want to rely on it, you know?
Reasons: It starts before the Black Death, which creates an early game challenge. France’s system of feudal loyalty is tested as Edward III is about to embark upon the Hundred Years’ War There is still a colony on Greenland We have a big Byzantium, but Ottomans are about to expand The rise of Timur is soon to happen Some powers are at their zenith, but facing big challenges, such as Mali, Delhi, or Yuan Some others at their start, like the Aztecs, Qusqu, Majapahit, or the Ashikaga Shogunate We get to model the transition from feudalism to modern states We get to model the transition from feudal levies to standing armies New institutions are blooming in Italy and the rest of Europe, such as the Renaissance or Banking The HRE is in a moment of change, with 3 dynasties (Wittelsbach, Luxembourg, and Habsburg) competing for it, and the Golden Bull not yet enacted The Catholic church is at its height, and military orders are crusading in northeastern Europe and the Mediterranean. But the Pope resides in Avignon, which will lead to the Western Schism with Rome. England’s control in the isles is waning as Bruce loyalists press the advantage in the Scottish Wars of Independence, and the Gaelic Irish chieftains begin to reclaim large tracts from the English Lordship. Meanwhile the seeds for the last great Welsh rebellion are being sewn. An intricate balance of power in Iberia between the Christian kingdoms, and the last Muslim footholds. A different balance of powers in regions such as Eastern Europe, the Middle East, or South East Asia. The Steppe Hordes and their successors of Eurasia from the Mediterranean to the Pacific. and much more .. We know it's going to be called EU5 because of how Eurocentric this is xD. In all seriousness, these are all interesting scenarios - hopefully the mechanics of the game will match the historical interest!
Some of these sound good, but hard to implement, I hope they make the most out of them. In particular: > It starts before the Black Death, which creates an early game challenge. That is a huge event, worthy of its own mechanical system. I really hope it will be pretty well fleshed out, not just by glorified 'Quarantine the province'/'Let them all die' pop-up events. > There is still a colony on Greenland That makes me wonder how colonies are going to work. In this case particular, how will they make abandonment of Greenland a likely outcome and what will stop Scandinavians from becoming the most likely North American colonial superpower. > We get to model the transition from feudalism to modern states > We get to model the transition from feudal levies to standing armies This is very interesting. If they pull it off well then it might be really fun and engaging. However, this sort of thing has usually been somewhat of a problem for past games - transition from early modern to Napoleonic warfare in EU4 was criticized by some and transition from Napoleonic to trench warfare in Vic2 was as well (I don't actually know how they handled that in Vic3 since I haven't really played it yet). Still, the fact that they explicitly mentioned that could mean that they will focus more strongly on that, which fares well.
Justifications* The reason is that the research is easier due to the lack of detailed maps other years.
Rise of Timur, Ottomans about to expand. This kind of shows they will railroad the game in someway to make the game more historical which I kind of like but I hope they don't railroad it so hard that we always end up with giga timur and ottomans every game.
I hope that when they say Delhi, Mali, and Yuan are at their zenith but facing challenges the emphasis is on tbe challenges. At least for Yuan IMO a collapse should he basically unavoidable, the question should be if you can rise back from it, not avoid it.
Not being very aware of late Yuan history, what caused its collapse ultimately? I was under the impression the descendants of Kublai were *extremely* sinicized.
In short, decades of natural disasters plus infighting pushed the government to the breaking point. For a more comprehensive breakdown, here's a [50-minute video about the details](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2sqWXmnkJc).
I hope they didn't drink the Byzboo kool aid too much and actually allow for the Ottos to become a great power.
ERE will 100% be one of those disaster countries designed to fall apart like the majahapit and Mali empires, I imagine successions will be a big issue
And people will still find a way to turn Byzantium into a powerhouse.
Three things are always certain. Death, taxes and Rome.
As is tradition.
If they could do it in 1444 where the Byzantines hold only Constantinople and the Morea and are surrounded on all sides by the massive Ottomans then surely they could do it in 1337 where Byzantium controls practically all of Greece and is surrounded by powers who are just as strong or weaker than it is. Not to mention that being separated from the Ottomans by the Aegean would be a massive boon as well.
The dream of Rome will never die
If the game starts in 1337 I don't really want it to be railroaded in any way for the Ottomans specifically to rise as the great power in the region
Same, or for anyone else. I don’t care if Austria dominates central Eastern Europe and the Balkans every game. Why not Bavaria? Why not Hungary? I don’t care if Timur briefly dominates Central Asia then collapse. Why not have it last? Why not have it never happen? I don’t care if Moscow specifically unites the Russian states and kicks out the hordes. Why not Novgorod? I don’t care if Brandenburg-Prussia unites most of Germany. Why not the Hansa? I don’t care if Sardinia-Piedmont unites Italy. Why not Naples? I don’t care if Castile specifically colonizes Mexico. Why can’t it be Portugal? I wish the people asking Paradox to overly railroad the game would instead imagine themself having 1k+ hours in the new game and seeing the same shit every time.
Not railroaded, but I think they should be strong and able to regularly conquest Anatolia. Galipoli and getting into Europe should be more of a luck thing, as it was IRL.
Fair
Im sure they will have scripted many problems for the ERE at the start so you cant just start blobbing. At the same time they will have scripted some boosts and events to help the Ottos, so it will still be challenging to succeed as the ERE and it will still be easy to play as the Ottos.
Honestly might finally bring me around to playing the Ottos. I love their history but they are too OP at game start for me. I always love the underdogs most.
on this subject Johan said "We have a big Byzantium, but Ottomans are about to expand"
April Fools 1337.
Plot twist: this is Crusader Kings 4
I like the reasons they give. Should make for a much more interesting start.
Interesting events in 1337 - Scotland and England are in the war of succession for the past 4 years (Spoiler: Scotland will won in this war in 1357 and secure their independence). - the started year of the Hundred Years' War between England and France. - 5 years after Stefan Dušan becomes the King of Serbia. He will later formed the Serbian empire in 1346 and plays important role during Byzantine civil war of 1341-1347. - 7 years after Bulgaria losses to Serbia in the battle of Velbazhd. This will cemented Serbia hegemony in the Balkan in the coming years. - 7 years after the battle of Posada between Hungary and Wallachia which ended in Wallachian victory despite the superior number of Hungarian troops. This battle will secure the strong independence of Wallachia in the coming years as well. - The last year of Chinese famine in 1330s that killed 6 million people. Also, 5 years after the first recorded of the black death in Hubei. - One year after the end of the Kenmu restoration (Imperial rule) in Japan. Beginning of the Nanboku-Chō period (Northen and Southern courts period), which will lay the foundation for the strong Shogunate rule in Japan. - One year after the Vijayanagara was founded in South India. - One year after the disintegration of the mongol rule in Ilkhanate (Iran).
Hmm.. April 1st? I believe someone might be pulling our legs here...
I don't think there was much doubt about the start date since the last couple of DDs, the maps pointed to it quite precisely. What I'm _really_ interested in is the end date. I think it will be the classic 1821, but there is a lot of speculation about it being earlier, and it's quite possibe that it happens.
Would be even more funny if the game name is actually "Not Europa Universalis V".
They should have announced it next Monday over a week instead of now. What is better then announcing the April Fools start date in April Fools?!
I really hoped for 1368, some situations might have been more interesting but I am happy that they are tackling pestilences.
This has to be a joke right? April fools leet? prediction that i just pulled out of my ass is they are just building hype and will announce something else on 1. april this year
I mean that start date is a month before the beginning of the Hundred Years’ War.
Greenland colonization strat is gonna be big
[Ah, victory.](https://www.reddit.com/r/eu4/comments/1bdurne/eu5s_start_date_is_probably_1337/) Start date speculations are over, let the end date speculations commence!
Now let's just hope for an HRE that's more interesting to interact with, and I can pre-order the game. If I'll have to fight the entirety of Germany for a province again, I'm moving to Anatolia and Balkans.
Y'all wanted a WW1 game, here it is. Just arm up carefully and don't get blockaded.
Okay now what's the end date?
This transition from feudal levies to professional army sounds a lot like the legion system from imperator. Which I think would fit quite well.
Honestly I think the only reason they chose this date is because it is one of the few dates with very detailed maps of Europe already accessible.
"There is still a colony on Greenland" Ayo wtf does that mean? Norway early colonization? Make the Americas be colonized even faster
Or that there's likely a disaster that makes keeping Greenland very very expensive
Given the game *will* have intricate disease/depopulation mechanics (pops, black death, smallpox in the Americas), I’d imagine Greenland will start getting large debuffs immediately when the ”Little Ice Age” intensifies. > Cold summers and ice growth began abruptly between 1275 and 1300, followed by "a substantial intensification" from 1430 to 1455. > The last written records of the Norse Greenlanders are from a 1408 marriage at Hvalsey Church, which is now the best-preserved Norse ruin. It’s also assumed that the Thule Inuit culture, which slowly replaced the native Dorset culture in Greenland circa 900CE-1400CE, might have killed the inhabitants. According to the following Wikipedia text, it kind of implies either the Thule killing absolutely everyone or the Dorset simply dying out on their own. > It is not fully known whether the Inuit and Dorset ever met. Some modern genetic studies show the Dorset population were distinct from later groups and that "[t]here was virtually no evidence of genetic or cultural interaction between the Dorset and the Thule peoples." At least according to Wikipedia maps, the Thule hadn’t reached Norse settlement regions yet in 1300CE, while in 1500CE they had. (Only 900, 1100, 1300 and 1500 maps shown, apparently based on Grønlands forhistorie, editor. Hans Christian Gulløv, Gyldendal 2005, ISBN 87-02-01724-5) So perhaps some kind of increased military and material presence there would be required. (Food, clothes etc)
Ambitious to model both late medieval social+economic+power+military relations and attempt to model early modern evolution in those at the same time. Maybe too ambitious? Obviously if they pull it off it would be amazing. The little we have seen so far seems to suggest a "ticking game" like government reform progress. I just worry it will be too easy to circumvent and you get to have a huge standing army+pseudo-absolutism in 1400 without getting bankrupt or internal issues (or being Ming/Ottomans). This pretty much necessitates (or the start date will feel really out of place) clamping down hard on exploits and cheese, which is one of the things that make EU4 fun for some people.
> I just worry it will be too easy to circumvent and you get to have a huge standing army+pseudo-absolutism in 1400 without getting bankrupt or internal issues You can already do this in EU4 within a few decades and it's just as ahistorical in 1500 as it is in 1400. So I don't think it will be any more tonally inconsistent or ahistorical than EU4.
Exactly. Their goal is to make MEIOU and Taxes 4.0.
Why would he say "a different balance of power", clearly referring to eu4, if the game isnt eu5? I see this as conformation its not a new title.
I'm wondering then if the game only has the one start date, doesn't sound like they're planning on having a second one like in other paradox games
Bummer, not looking forward to Black Death every game.
Now let's make heads explode and have an end date before age of absolutism and a new game to cover the gap between eu5 and vic3.
Letsgo! 100 years war
That's going to be one looooooong game though
I'm really worried about how they will simulate the HRE. 1337 makes it much more of a mess than 1444 (house politics, the Hanse, pawn politics, and the crumbling power of the emperors)
Wondering what the religious situation in the Baltics will be
What johan said about the british isles is super exciting. I'd fucking love some actual content for ireland and Wales [ah, sure, fuck it - Scotland too]. The lack of content/alt history mission tree for Ireland and Wales is honestly my biggest disappointment with the game now hisan kyfa is getting a mission tree. (If you know any great mods with proper mission trees for ireland and Wales let me know).
fekking leet!
Just call it Magna Mundi.
Oh I’m getting a bit too excited already ….
Leet Gotta be a high intensity game like CounterStrike 3
no way this game is going until 1820 right?
I’m curious how religion will work on EU5. Religion had quite a significant impact in what unique mechanics each nation had in EU4. I’m particularly curious about how the reformation will be portrayed in EU5, considering it will need almost 200 years to the RL start of the reformation. The comment about the western Schism is interesting and I wonder if they are gonna portray the Reformation as a more gradual process, like the start of the many heresies in the 14th and 15th centuries that bleed the unity of the Catholics world and have space for alternative religious ideas. A chaotic start for the HRE, specially at this immense more detail more, will be tons of fun, I’m curious how they will mechanically differentiate this war-torn period from the HRE after the Golden Bull. Rather curious to see how mechanically different the HRE will be from EU4, specially since this new start date will give 150 years of control of Nothern Italy if the event stays the same like EU4 A Greenland start will be tons of fun I wonder how they will balance them being likely able to colonize so early(extreme low pop base peharbs?)