EU5 POLITICAL MAP, Starting Date And Estates REVEALED

In this video titled EU5 POLITICAL MAP, Starting Date And Estates REVEALED I discuss the latest Dev Diaries posted on the PDX forums titled Tinto Talks, about the upcoming Paradox Interactive Project Caesar, that by now we all know is about Europa Universalis: V.
If you enjoyed this video, consider leaving a like and subscribing for more content in the future.
#europauniversalis4 #eu4 #eu5
2nd Channel: / @thebirdseyereport
Discord: / discord
Twitch: / theredhawklive
Twitter: / theredhawkyt
Become a member: / @theredhawk

[@TheRedHawk]

Last two Dev Diaries: forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/developer-diary/tinto-talks-4-march-20th-2024.1636860/ forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/developer-diary/tinto-talks-5-march-27th-2024.1647775/

[@norre1224]

Wait they have dropped the dev diaries thougt they only did tinto talks

[@gabriellundberg4344]

my own personal input on the start date is that eu4 is all about the change from feudal to "modern" society. That change started during the black death and how societies responded to it largely shaped the coming centuries of eu4, so I think getting you in the driver seat of allowing reform or supressing peasent rights is an amazing choice even if you have to play through a bit of medieval history before getting to the true eu4 type of gameplay.

[@Kasaaz]

I also think starting just before the Hundred Years War means that the relative power of France and England can vary greatly from game to game based on the AI etc, and that could prove to be more interesting and varied mid-games if you're playing a long game.

[@myrddinemrys1332]

I agree, and the Hundred Years War was also instrumental in the development of the idea of a unified nationality and the nation state in England and France which starts in 1337.

[@MuppetLord1]

If it keeps EU4 quality(actually hopeful cause Tinto have been great with the expansions, yes even Leviathan after the fix) I think that it will be the most fun start date so far in the EU series. :)

[@emilyfinch8923]

Yeah, but while the black death was significant the nobility still retained its power and u only really get to see more "early modern" goverbments by thr later 1400s so personally i think It's still a bit too far forward.

[@Chewbert]

I just assume that the titles without specific land refers to political entities like the holy Roman Empire

[@TheRedHawk]

This mf smart

[@ArakkoaChronicles]

Or the Papal States. or the migratory hordes and such.

[@Chewbert]

Perhaps names based on dynasty like historic Muslim realms as well

[@sksplashh2324]

HRE, Caliphate, Papal States

[@YoungClarke]

Was thinking about nomadic tribes, too. Like one of the Khannates, or maybe something like pretender’s to a throne/exiled governments and people being a faction rivals can support, rather than just an action to do.

[@a1phamemes734]

With the increase in locations I hope war is more focused on a few battles and occuping the land you take because I cant imagine how tedious it would be to full occupy nations

[@pseudoproak]

I hope it's like CK3

[@sebe2255]

@@pseudoproakCk3 wars are awful. At the start they are fine but in the mid and late game every war is a huge slog where you constantly have to swat armies and siege half their realm

[@heiskanbuscadordelaverdad8709]

I think they will use a system like imperator were if you take the capital of the province and all the forts you occupy the whole province

[@a1phamemes734]

@@heiskanbuscadordelaverdad8709 I havent played imperator but if many nations have locations in a single province would there be a seperate capital for the province in each nation?

[@andrewstachowski3375]

its gonna be worse than vic3 trust me

[@chrisbatista4481]

Saying that most players won't play past the first 100 years based in EUV based on how EUIV is built is a bit of a shortsighted argument. From the posts, it sounds like Johan and the developers are trying to solve that issue where after the first 100 years the game stagnates and gets boring, and they are trying to solve players speed running the game in the first 100 years. The new mechanics and philosophy they are taking appears to make every action to actually have a consequence and have the game play out those consequences. Currently in the game I click some government reform and that's it, there's no interaction from the game, there is no consequence. The earlier start date makes sense if they are forcing you to consolidate your realm before you conquer and expand and colonize. I love EU4 but its a very shallow game and the added changes are going to require the player to be more involved. It might actually have you think about what you pass or enact based on what pops are going to be happy or mad. EUIV, there really isn't any thinking involved, its a make everything one pretty color which gets stale really fast. For a content creator, I can see how this can make content harder to make since you might be required to: a) play longer; b) not take simple repetitive strategies every play through; c) the content might not be replicable for the player since there are far more variables (ie. your guides, which I do find helpful). But to want to dumb down the game so you can speed run, leaves a bit of distasteful impression for me. IDK I welcome all the changes so far and am excited for the game. EUV seems like its what I was hoping for, basically MEIOU and Taxes mod, with Imperator, and some Vicky spiced in there.

[@inealeornot1498]

It might be better this way for content creation cause the things red hawk listed we saw over and over again in videos and in our own games. This is a chance for creators and players to wonder and explore ourselves and if you want a classic eu4 game i bet you can just pick the 1444 start date just like every other eu before

[@iquabakaner]

Agreed. It's basically confirmed that the player will have to deal with the Black Death as an immediate early game crisis, plus every great power is going to get some kind of disasters. I think a slow start is by design.

[@nutyyyy]

I think the issue is as much what the scope of the game is meant to be. Is Europa Universalis still about the age of exploration and colonisation or is it a medieval game? Obviously it can be both but it does seem like it will take a while to really get into the colonial game and the world that exists by that point might be totally different. One of the benefits of starting in 1444 or even 1492 is that you have all the colonial nations ready to go, they don't have as much of an opportunity to get wrecked meanwhile. It will be fine if there's a mechanic to ensure that in every playthrough multiple nations go down the colonial route, even if Spain or France, or Portugal has been destroyed by that point. Otherwise you lose an interesting element of the game.

[@harku123]

Yea I think Vic3 is designed better in that sense. Vic3 is fun all the way from start to end date

[@darksaber2k]

CK3: We CaNt Do PlaYaBlE RePuBliCs Tinto: So we got Republics

[@WeedmanSkirr]

w8 ck3 doesnt have playable republics? like even ck2 has them lol

[@_Aowyn_]

​@@WeedmanSkirr Ck2 only has them with dlc. The dlc for ck3 hasn't come out yet

[@WeedmanSkirr]

@@_Aowyn_ yea ik i got 2k hours in ck2 ^^ but making them a dlc in crusader KINGS seems fine. As Long as they will make them.

[@Anselmer_]

I'll be honest, idk how tf a republic gov is going to work in a game where the core gameplay is based around familial dynasties. Unless it's some hereditary dictatorship idk how that's supposed to work

[@andyman301]

I feel like unlanded characters and manors for Byzantine characters sounds like a precursor to republics, so I think it's likely for the next chapter.

[@Donderu]

I’m honestly stoked about the start date, and regarding colonization and exploration, it can lead to a very interesting timeline. If the Ottomans don’t block Europe from the Silk Road trade, there’s less incentive for the european powers to look for alternative routes, and thus colonization. This would mean that europe doesn’t necessarily become the main colonizing power, if institutions are more gradual rather than based on spending mana points. Maybe the ticking score toward the advent of colonization doesn’t trigger unless a hostile power blocks trade into europe from the east. Maybe it can be tied to a decision by a major power in the region, let’s say if any muslim power controls anatolia and the bosphorus, they can make the decision to block trade into europe to gain massive trade value/prestiege, which will make it a bit more likely to be taken by both players and AI

[@a1phamemes734]

underrated comment

[@baltai3123]

What you said could happen in real history, but in game even if the silk road trade is not blocked, there will still be geographical discoveries I think. Cuz I don't think they will be into what if history that much. They don't show the huge consequences of our actions. Age mechanics will continue as others

[@nutyyyy]

What will happen is the colonising countries will end up being weakened or destroyed and the Americas will sit empty for the player to steamroller through unless they make it so that someone else automatically goes down a colonisation route if certain countries don't

[@jacobcantrell82]

The whole "Fall of Constantinople lead to European colonization" thing is actually a myth. By the 1400s Constantinople wasn't that important to Continental trade and the Portuguese had been trying to find alternate ways to Asia before the Byzantines fell. The Mamluks were much more important in European-Asian trade.

[@clearlypellucid]

The "monthly progress to aristocracy" is absolutely a new version of the "slider" mechanic from EU3, where whether your country is run by aristocrats or some other faction is determined by position on a slider. So being an autocracy strengthens your aristocracy and moves you away from plutocracy.

[@jasonmain6398]

Sliders were in eu1 2 and hoi 1 and 2 also. Good times

[@Mimi.1001]

4:18 Said Knights are also literally the Knights present in EUIV. After Rhodes was conquered by the Ottomans, they were given Malta by Spain/Charles V (also an event in the game) until they were again driven from Malta by Napoleon. So this might indeed refer to them, after they were conquered outright in the game. Don't really know how they could continually influence other nations in the game context, though. Well, since that's just one tag other nations/cases probably make more sense.

[@Kimuyaman]

12:00 i diagree with the notion that the map is a provonce view mapmode. I could be wrong but this to me looks more like some kind of debug map where all individual locations presumably have the same rgb values as the games map.png file

[@kesorangutan6170]

Yes I agree. If we look at province map mode in Imperator, all the locations in the same province share one color. This is definitely RGB value map.

[@drzombie9485]

the stuff with 'monthly progress' shown on the images of the TT#4 are definitely the Societal Values shown at the end of the post that are a comeback from a mechanic from eu3

[@perturabo7825]

It’s looking like EUV is going to basically be a hybrid of EUIII, EUIV and imperator and I have zero problems with that. If monarch points are gone I’ll be a very happy man.

[@PontusMaestro]

For some reason I feel like colonization will be a bit more unhinged now when we start at an earlier date, lol.

[@chrisbatista4481]

Johan said its not possible and seemed pretty confident about it

[@nutyyyy]

It 100% will be and it's gonna be a less important part of the game I reckon. By the time you get to colonisation it will be like getting into the 1600s in EU4.

[@a1phamemes734]

My guess is that the things that say "Monthy progress towards..." will be the sliders that were shown ie at 8:56 there is one that says progress towards serfdom, where it may be a spectrum from serfdom to free subjects

[@jacobcantrell82]

Love the start date because Byz playthroughs will be more fun. Though with regards to estates I do kind of worry that the system will be the same for everyone. For example, while the French kings had trouble taxing their nobles even in the 1700's but the Byzantines even during the Palaiologoi era had no such problem. Hopefully there will be different ways you interact with estates for say you bog standard feudal European kingdom and the more autocratic nations like Byzantium or China. Also considering Paradox wants to limit blobbing a cool addition would be replacing governing capacity with something more akin to a governing sphere of influence where you were able to control lands a certain distance from your capital but passing that distance made them harder to core, granted more unrest and gave you less money. You could then only increase this governing sphere by constructing buildings, converting and integrating or culture converting to the fringes of your current frontier or getting new tech. The sea would also have a reduced governing sphere "distance" so you could take far away coastal provinces, still making colonies viable. So, for example, Byzantium could take control of Italy and Anatolia without too much trouble but if they tried to expand into Persia or over the Alps then governing overreach would make those new lands a burden rather than a boon.

[@3komma141592653]

Byzantine will sure get some hard core disaster to display that they were an empire on it's downfall. Something like Mali in EU4.

[@jacobcantrell82]

@@3komma141592653 Eh in 1337 the Byzantines weren’t moribund quite yet. It was mostly the civil wars just a little latter which sealed their fate. The main issue facing them should be with internal unrest and civil wars so you need to secure legitimacy quickly at the start by defeating say the remaining crusader states in Greece to secure your position.

[@kesorangutan6170]

They will talk about a "new" feature called "proximity" in the next Tinto Talks. Most people speculate that it's the "Communication Efficency" mechanic from the popular mod MEIOU & Taxes. That's the mechanic you described in your comment :D Further the province from your capital, less resources you get from it and they are more rebellious. You can increase communication efficency by building harbors and roads and creating regional governments.

[@jacobcantrell82]

@@kesorangutan6170 Shame MEIOU absolutely kills my PC so I can't play it. Seems like a much better system than the arbitrariness of governing capacity.

[@vinayakkothari6162]

Tinto Talks is superior to dev diary Fight me

[@dragdritt]

Honestly this whole estate system seems super similar to the way it works in the Meiou and Taxes mod. Pretty excited about that, as that, along with dynamic centres of trade etc. was one of my favourite features of that mod. It would be really nice if they were to take inspiration from the best parts of that mod, while leaving out the unnecessary mechanics/complexity and less-than-ideal UI. If they've actually taken inspiration from that mod then one can use that to guess what other mechanics might be implemented. Higher autonomy in a province leads to less income to the state, but more income to the different estates that control the provinces. Since the estates can invest that money, it doesn't just get lost into the ether like it does now, where lower autonomy is always preferrable. There higher autonomy also leads to less revolt risk, as why would someone who can already do what they want to rebel? Provinces/estates build up money over time, this can be stolen if the province gets looted during a war. This can be extremely lucrative for you if you are the one doing it to others, but devastating if it happens to you. Having your capital pillaged can set you back decades. The availability of food, not only in your provinces, but in general affects how large of a population can be supported. You can't just have a million population in your cities while there's barely any farmers, that doesn't work.

[@Seer_Of_The_Woodlands]

I disagree with you about the starting year, so far each game has had a different year and I see no reason why there should be a change... I personally think that 1337 is better than 1444. (I think it's a more interesting year to start the game) (1337 offers much more opportunities to change the course of history) (+100 years earlier doesn't necessarily mean much in terms of game time, it purely depends on how fast time passes in the game, etc.) (+ as I said, each game has started in a different year and at least I think it's better that the "scenery" changes from time to time) (+ Greenland is inhabited, vikings? that alone makes the year start worth the change. at least for me) otherwise quite a good video !

[@vitaeth4949]

That Byzantine exclave was fortified town of Philadelphia. When Byzantium became vassal of Ottomans during Bayezid rule, it was ceded to Ottomans (1390).

[@warwickeng5491]

28:17 - I have my doubts about the end date, since the game seems to have a much bigger focus on earlier history than the timeline we are used to, the end date might be something like the French revolution, so 1789/1790s

[@neochris2]

Hopefully not so soon. I want my early 1800s even if I don't always reach those years. It's like a prize.

[@greek7281]

I mean CK3 went into a period further than CK2 allowed I don't see why EU5 would "Have" to end earlier than eu4 does just because its a longer amount of playtime. but who knows we will see the game might be a totall flop for all we know.

[@joekildarde-fo5ob]

Thanks for keeping us informed Red Hawk appreciate it.

[@zeldathomas3498]

Interesting to have Black Death right at the start date, when CK3 just released DLC very much focused on plagues

[@datbo1]

I'm not entirely opposed to Imperator styled missions as long as they don't hyper-stylize the UI in them as it was in Imperator.

[@thedeadlysquidward1641]

I am very happy about something that seems to be really underrated that the Caspian is now Navigable and I am hoping other bodies of water are as well

[@simpleb645]

I really hope these changes shake up the content creator meta of abandoning campaigns after 50-150 years. Whether that leads to longer form, multi -series episodes, or more compressly edited videos, that'd be fun to see, but it is often pretty disappointing that some arbitrary end date is chosen and fun stories are abandoned at a whim.

[@monotee427]

I'm excited for EU5, but i'm not excited for another Paradox Game Launch. So i will buy it one year after releaste when it's playable.

[@3komma141592653]

true

[@connormcgee4711]

Super reasonable! At least we know what to expect by now, and can act accordingly

[@Fertro]

Yeah that's what I think. I don't want to sound super negative, but EU4 is great because they've been working on it for a decade and have released 800 DLCs. I think it'll be a while before EU5 gets anywhere near EU4's level. God I hope I'm wrong though.

[@samvimes2061]

​@@FertroA thing to consider is performance. The landscape of engine design, specifically multiprocessor utilization has changed significantly since eu4's launch and could be a great plus. On the other hand, I imagine the core engine is shared across paradox games and some of the improvements could have already been retrofitted.

[@justcarterr]

I love the start date- I hope there is content for a duel monarchy and maybe the creation of anglois culture that slowly spreads on english and french pops; maybe the 100 year war will play like Iberia in CK3

[@arsemaster2801]

Well done on the very rapid upload! Great video bro 👊

[@Cris1Mac]

30:53 Look at the face next to the % to the right of the face is an arrow up. So trending up? The others are status quo. Also I am really liking the new date. Maybe they will have a second date of 1444 for all of you content creators.

[@DasLeryl]

I wonder if they actually drop the Europa Universalis name for this game and choose something else.

[@andrewbrian7659]

Given that we now have pops, and presumably manpower will depend upon pops, titles without land might be merc companies as otherwise they are drawing their manpower from nowhere.

[@samomighty7893]

The countries not being based on owning land reminds me of Penthesilea’s Amazons from Total War: Troy. They are an army that can't own settlements but is still a playable character that goes around and razes settlements. Obviously Total War and Paradox have very different games but its still similar enough to compare in this way. Also maybe different pirates or mercenary units will be playable which would be pretty cool, although I am not sure how they could do that.

[@piper51786]

Dealing with the Black Death is gonna be interesting.

[@joshpam23]

If that's the case, keep playing EU4. (maybe sprinkle some 5 in as you see fit) I have a feeling a considerable amount of people, whether or not they try 5, will keep playing 4. Don't pressure yourself to move on to novelty.

[@fyzikar12397]

I get the issue for content creators, but even in EU4 you miss the big parts like colonial nations becoming independent or revolutions. It will be nice to do something else after first few in game years than to dev up the Renaissance...

[@MrBattlecharge]

@4:30 the first thing that popped into my mind was the government in exile of the Republic de San Marcos. Might be rebel leaders?

[@kanikleios8877]

My worries with the earlier start date, as someone who likes to play longer games, is that it'll just compound the same issues EU4 has with progressive development and things like colonization. 90% of the world shouldn't and couldn't be colonized by 1600, and I hope that the developers will prevent that from happening again. It's worrying that the Greenland colony is sold as a positive for changing the start date to 1337; I really don't want every game I play to have all of North America colonized by the Norwegians by 1500 when just maintaining a presence on Greenland was extraordinarily difficult and wasn't reattempted successfully for another 300 years.

[@yeen4204]

johan has addressed this and pretty much said that is impossible the way the system is designed, I think we all generally underestimate the fact that they know all of these issues and were able to develop the game ground up with them in mind.

[@MrSake555]

They seem to hint at a "proximity" system, which I assume would be the main blocking factor for early blobbing.

[@Smileyreal]

I assume the reason why the greenland colony was used as a reason is because it'll be a unique challenge available for norway. There's likely going to be an event chain related to the struggles there, and If norway manages to hold onto it they might be able to take all of greenland and then eventually become a more relevant colonizer along with iberia and the uk when colonization actually starts. As the other guy said, Johan confirmed that colonization won't be possible super early game, so i think they'll be making it slower than in eu4.

[@nutyyyy]

​@@yeen4204He's said that about all the other games as well to be fair. Let's not get overhyped and disappointed again.

[@micahbonewell5994]

I think that the biggest thing that EU4 has lacking is the longevity of the fun. Because you start as a semi modern state and then become one really quickly you conquer lots of land really quickly and the challenge just goes out the window. I'm going to appreciate the incentive to play a longer campaign, to have a more distinct change between feudal -> pre-modern -> modern states. There's a lot of fun things going on in this time period compared to 1444: Ottomans are far too easy in 1444 and so i have never played them, I might actually play Otto in this. Byz's recovery would actually be realistic Playing in or near asia minor won't be the instant struggle for survival it is in 1444 Poland and Lithuania are very interesting during this time period and don't start out OP France won't start out OP Austria won't start out OP Timurids won't start out OP Muscovy will be much more of a challenge and Novgorod will be much easier Denmark won't start out OP, and Sweden and Norway will be independent. Teutonic Order will actually be powerful rather than a state on the periphery. The new time period will give me a reason to play this over EU4 since at start EU4 will have much more content and likely be the better game.

[@y33t23]

I wonder what the end date is going to be. Will they move it 100 years back or will we still get the beginning of the 1800s? Would leave a big gap between EU5 and Victoria 3

[@Renegateor]

I feel like this is a fusion of CK3 + V3 in EU, kind of interesting, but they really need to know what they're doing here...

[@kesorangutan6170]

2:45 you literally did a video on Circassia turning them into horde :D Sapmi is also tribal.

[@jodinha4225]

I think you're looking at the start date wrong. Sure, a typical youtuber playthrough may not see what we saw in EU4, but the point of making a new game is to have a new experience. If people want to jump right in to colonization, EU4 will still exist. I think ultimately is really good that PDX is moving the start date, because these games serve as a huge entry point to historical learning for a lot of people. It presents the past as something alive, something fun. I think that showing a new part of history is always good, and I think quite frankly a lot of us (me included) are kind of bored by the game progression of EU4 by this point. Its been a decade...

[@Kasaaz]

I do wonder if they are actually going to end up calling it something other than Europa Universalis, if they're still being coy with the name.

[@yeen4204]

I’d be so ready for that. EU4 barely centres on Europe anymore anyway (for the better) and with a start date 100 years earlier, the idea of European historical dominance is less and less of a given. I’d imagine the name stays for brand recognition, though.

[@Smileyreal]

I feel like their intention was to wait and announce the game like normal at PDXcon or something, but people just figured it out pretty much instantly.

[@CheeseOfString]

Part of me hopes they do 2 really fleshed out start dates like they did in ck3.

[@alessiobenvenuto5159]

There are 2 solutions to this start date: 1- we could have a second one in the second half of the 15th century, 2- the game is 2 times faster, This way the game would last like roughly 250 years of eu4, witch would be appropriate imo Because i wanna see the 1700s, the revolutions, colonial wars, and Napoleonic wars

[@celdur4635]

We have tu suffer through "byzantine empire" instead of Roman Empire or at least Eastern Roman Empire for 20 more years -.- until next hope EU6

[@baltai3123]

So what you say may be true historically. However, the Eastern Roman Empire is more like the walking dead of the Roman Empire. Also the empire greekized. So it is difficult to talk about such a thing as Roman identity. Today, Greeks already see the Eastern Roman Empire as a Greek state. That's why I think it's not that important.

[@Nick77ab2]

you won't see the colonization, yes, but since the game will be eu5 not eu4 you should expect to play it and get used to it and, over time, another big event will replace that in the expectations. All main eu4 events you'll usually see will be replaced by some other eu5 event of similar size (exploration with black death could be a good example). There are similar, if not greater challenges and struggles in the 1337 start. (I also agree with what @gabriellundberg4344 said)

[@jeggo182]

I could have sworn I had already watched this video. Then I realized, no, I watched Ludi's video.

[@warwickeng5491]

The sea tiles might be areas under the control of a nation, whereby they might give some kind of anti piracy/trade bonuses, since its under the control of a nation maybe?????

[@Barista.Nathan]

One of the most important aspects about why I think the start date had to change is that if the start date was still you know like 1438 or 1440 or even 1450, they would just be essentially shipping eu4 but with less content. There is no way to make eu5 have the same time frame as eu4 and not just be an inferior product at launch. I think they've learned their lesson from prior games that you don't want to just repaint the previous game and change some systems around and hope that the fans are okay waiting several years before there's a game there that they want to return to. I like the idea of just radically changing the start date and the framing of the game and offering a unique product that is not one-to-one comparable to the previous game. Even if it isn't exactly what I expected.

[@theamericanbluebeast2342]

Super curious as to how they'll handle the HRE.

[@marcinkusmierzak991]

I wanted an earlier starting date for EU5 - recreate the rise of Timur, have Hussite wars, etc. I haven't thought about going as early as 1337 but it can be nice

[@worcestershirey]

Don't forget that EU5 isn't EU4. The Europa Universalis series has been known to make large changes between entries and they all have different start dates and mechanics. EU4 is not the EU series as a whole. You'll find plenty of content to do with a 1337 start date, it'll really just be different in terms of what nations are present at the start and how well they're doing. They're different games, expecting the same thing between entries is kind of not what you expect from Paradox at all, let alone in Europa Universalis. In fact, a video about the differences between entries in the EU series could be really interesting. Maybe a playthrough or two in each game could be cool just to see how the series has evolved in preparation for EU5

[@andrewstachowski3375]

they basically dumb down every new iteration in a series

[@FarsightAE]

I like the earlier start date. I'm sure they'll have the normal start date as an option as well.

[@MasterBeiberEverything]

Hi Red Hawk

[@TheRedHawk]

Hello!

[@Lp-army1]

Hey!

[@wyndhamfreeman1489]

My only worry with an earlier start date is that it will require a lot more railroading (or will not follow history at all). Also worried that they'll move the end date to before the French Revolution, which I would really disagree with.

[@cinnanyan]

Apparently the map in #5 is so dark because it was a screenshot from a game as Aragon and everything in eastern Europe is covered by fog of war

[@mksii]

I wouldn't be too worried about the starting date, as there likely will be at least one more that is set later. Considering the big time frame this game will cover it would make sense.

[@Smileyreal]

Johan has confirmed no alternative start dates because nobody plays them, however mods will be able to add new start dates.

[@UniDocs_Mahapushpa_Cyavana]

Things they should add: • De facto national unity and de jure national unity to replace governing capacity • The ability to form supranational organisations like the HRE • Flavourful cultures, as EU4 basically ignores them for the most part • Crisis shock ⚡, as it is the major force in real life and the main known reason nations did not grow to such sizes as you can attain in game. Plus, it means crises have more strategic depth as you can exploit the crisis shock to your advantage sometimes. • Formable mega nations, which did not exist in our time but logically should if a nations gets large enough like: • Earth 🌍 • Europe • Things based on a geographic region, like South Himalaya (India and mainland South East Asia), Northern Green Belt (Europe and the steppes), The Mediterranean, The Indonesian Archipelago, Sahara, Sub-Saharan Africa, Africa, The Gulf of Mexico, The Caribbean Sea etc.

[@TheGnom1]

an early start allows a better midgame as it relatively easy to flesh it out with the eu4 early game

[@pyrothelostone]

Its a bit of a niche concern, but i wonder how this new start date will effect mega campaigns with so much overlap between the end of ck3 and the beginning of eu5.

[@Bottle-OBill]

All the trepidations about the differing start date is dependent on you being able to achieve your goals at the same pace as in EU4.

[@pedroparker2743]

They really need to make mid and late game interesting in eu5.

[@Noobmaster-of3xk]

I swear if I get an event about "the plauge spread by rats" every time I start a campain I will go insane

[@tanker00v25]

Why?

[@lukatomas9465]

@@tanker00v25 The black death started a decade after 1337.

[@tanker00v25]

@@lukatomas9465 yeah, but why will he go insane?

[@MoogleEmpMog]

​@@tanker00v25 Probably because the most up-to-date research on the subject suggests rats were almost certainly NOT responsible for spreading the plague.

[@kiwuuspurr1927]

@@tanker00v25 probably because of how annoying it'd be to constantly have to see that event popup every time

[@RekjinDE]

Using different start years (points) for EU5 Videos? Could this be a option?

[@Roman-zj5jp]

What if those things like serfdom or free subjects trend towards an equilibrium, meaning that the +0.10 changes the equilibrium by 10%

[@themoonisreal12]

1337 as a start date is cool and all but what's the end date going to be? Will it still be 1821? Or slightly earlier like 1776, 1783, 1789, or 1799? Or it could end slightly after I guess, like maybe the Congress of Vienna?(don't remember the exact year, I think it was in the 1840s?)

[@Kasaaz]

How long before a 1444 Start Date mod?

[@PlatinumGrande]

You can choose different start dates in EU4, I don’t know why it’d be different in EU5.

[@Knownthingg]

Genuine question, are we getting this information as definitive by Johan\the team, or are\will the fan input actually matter? Are they gonna change anything based on feedback? Have they already changed something due to feedback?

[@Smileyreal]

According to Johan, the reason why they're doing these tinto talks is to receive community feedback on the game before they actually announce it. I have no clue if anything has been changed yet, but they've barely scratched the surface of the game's mechanics so far. So i guess we'll just have to find out.

[@Kasaaz]

I'm curious what will end up being the new 'hardest' meme start.

[@rosymaple4203]

I think the earlier start date means more options for peasants republics to form independently, more options for heretical world powers, and potentially new gameplay for indigenous nations. I think THIS might actually be the thing that makes differing start dates MORE fun. EU4 I would almost never play a different start date unless it's specifically to start at age of colonization as Castile/Texas/Mexican minors. While not guaranteed, there might be a closer attention to detail in possible start dates like in eu4

[@BostonMoose513]

1337 also means that the North American natives can also be modeled and in theory prevent whatever disease they want to model.

[@whosneekoh]

you could start at a later start date if you want to make a video that should have a lot of colonizing ?

[@FedericoApuzzo]

What if any of the beilicates that comes on top something something event and forms the Ottomans? (except Karaman that would form Sultanate of Rum)

[@clearlypellucid]

Have you considered that the reason you don't enjoy playing past a certain date is due to the design, and that it's entirely possible that this new design will have you wanting to keep playing into the later stages of the game?

[@aqvamarek5316]

They really have taken "Meiou" plus EU2/3 as basic for EU5, good move.

[@a1phamemes734]

35:17 I wonder if peasants can migrate does that mean they could move to cities, improving say burgher power and reducing nobles power, or change goods produced modifer as they may move to a city and produce said good (I know they are probably completely reworking trade goods but food for thought). For example when industrialization is starting would restricting movement prevent your economy form growing quickly (like Russia irl)

[@hazorg16]

26:32 that's Philadelphia

[@Chuck12312]

Hopefully they make the mid and late game fun as that’s usually one thing is that once everyone speedruns and conquered a lot in early game it gets boring too quick in eu4

[@NorseOkies]

I will assume that the starting dates will be similar to CK3, where you can choose different "scenarios" with different start dates, that should cover your grievenses.

[@jespoketheepic]

We have been told by Johan that there won't be other start dates.

[@NorseOkies]

@@jespoketheepic really? Even EU4 has that... It seems a bit weird to not include... Paradox being paradox, I guess we'll see a DLC in future about this, as I suspect. Many will have an issue with this.

[@jespoketheepic]

@@NorseOkies Johan has previously mentioned that the start dates of EU4 took a lot of work, and the amount of players that used them was extremely small. Crusader Kings is really the only Paradox series where start dates aside from the earliest one see any significant use. I myself would like a second start date that is 1490 or later, but I bet I will have to rely on mods to get it.

[@majorianus8055]

Love this start date.

[@ProfCoyote]

Arrgh, just cause it's so close to April Fool's day, there's still the back of my mind waiting for the start date of April First, LEET year being a "Ha ha that was a funny, here's the real one."

[@jespoketheepic]

Depending on how they develop it, some things that could become iconic to look at in EU5 would be: - how is the 100 years war going? - how are the Ottomans doing? - who is the emperor? - How did Timur do? - What happened to Delhi?

[@peaceanquiet4528]

Enacting something that doesn't automatically become effective but takes time I'll just call "implementation."

[@MuppetLord1]

I love the new start date, as a Tamerlane fanboy, playing the rise of Tamerlane will be amazing, also playing as the last pagan nagion in Europe is gonna be mint. :D

[@orestpaja2531]

I hope they can make warfare more interesting in eu5

[@robertrussell5856]

Expansion and AE should work differently in EU V. I believe there should be a claims system like in CK3, but you can also take more than just the claims like EU IV. The catch would be you getting a ton of AE from taking unclaimed territory, but that you can surrender the unclaimed territory to cause the coalition to fall apart. If the coalition declares war and succeeds, you lose all your territory and the claims on it. If you defeat the coalition then the AE is lost and the territory is legitimized. Also Coalitions should only fire if the opposing force is overwhelming, and if you take too much claimed territory at once returning unclaimed territory wouldn't really matter in preventing a coalition. Details: - Unclaimed territory is culmulative unless legitimized, all unclaimed territory from all wars will be lost in coalition if not. - Claimed territory only from the war that triggered the coalition, plus any wars following it's triggering, will be returned and unclaimed. - Overwhelming force constitutes 3x or greater military strength, accounting for troop quality, so that coalitions wouldn't be an easy trick to legitimize territory but a real fight. Also Coalition has to declare on you for it to legitimize territory.

[@jasonmain6398]

It's Louie the 14th. Le roi Soleil. He famously said "I am the state" c'est moi le'tat

[@aleisley5797]

I hope they make navies more important.

[@CoimbraBertone]

I have a bit of a theory that - going along with the whole 'nobody plays full games' thing - is that part of the reason why they're still calling it Project Caesar is that they're planning on splitting the game in two. Project Caesar is gonna focus on the transition from feudalism to modern states (so like 1337-1648) and then another game will cover 1648 to 1836, bridging the gap to Victoria 3. This could allow them to properly model what is the endgame of EU4 that a lot of people have found lackluster.

[@soundsleep5470]

Oh damn, that actually makes perfect sense

[@boy7boy777]

Louis XIV appears in the latest Tinto Talk, and he ruled from 1643-1715.

[@jacobmartin1100]

To be fair, the game will probably move extremely quickly in the fist 100 years; the plague will wipe 1/3rd-1/2 of Europe's pops, along with a bunch of other pops across Eurasia. This loss in manpower and taxbase for European states will severely limit the ability to do much of anything besides internal institutional changes to set yourself up for the recovery phase, and what struggles you *do* pursue should be all-consuming and extremely resource intensive considering what limited base you will have. Accordingly, the drop in pops should yield an increase in performance (though minimal or unnoticeable if well optimized). This should somewhat alleviate the content concerns if the first 50 years go by in a blink (more or less), but I do understand that the algorithm isn't really supportive of a multi-part series. Something to note is the Colombian Exchange should yield a second boon in performance as tens of millions of pops die from disease in the Americas, so maybe that'll help push the game along further. Overall, I wouldn't be too worried about missing the key points (at least if you're playing a European polity) due to the way the start date would force you into relative inactivity besides internal affairs for a few decades.

[@FordHoard]

It's gonna get so old dealing with the plague at the start of every game.

[@Ugapiku]

Good game engine will let people play through years faster and don't feel the game slowing like it does in EU4, so hopefully what I'm saying is not nonsense and we will finally be able to play through the entire time...

[@Kasaaz]

Crusader Kings 3 ends in 1453, so this saves me over a hundred years of playing if I want to do a Mega Campaign, at least.

[@Ritter2749]

Looks like an upcoming game called GREY EMINANCE

[@wolframandre9968]

Ok. Sooo... its time to change PC after 8 years. Thx for the review

[@MDJONAS]

That’s what I am thinking even though my pc is 4 years old haha (the tech inside might be 5 years old tho)

[@culannthehound94]

I appreciate RH's position, but he did leave out one thing, playing the game to league wars etc... At the moment it's hard to rule it out, we don't quite know the momentum of the game. EU4 expansion in the last 100-150 years is significantly faster than the first 250 years.

[@danshakuimo]

There is actually one tribe in Europe, which is Circassia.

[@osmaniesquijarosa4308]

And Sapmí

[@jackconrad4814]

Having played CK3 a bit(a lot) recently, really starting to be ready for EU5. It's time to retire 4

[@yaboi9419]

I feel like if you started your EU5 videos at 1444, people wouldn’t really mind. You could just pick that start date. Not to mention there will be other cool and fun events. That will happen early game I’m sure. Similar to the ones you mentioned.