It's strange to me how they've gone from what feels like a major part of the game to a mostly forgotten side feature to something that has been totally removed in everything but CK3. It's especially noticeable in the context of EU5, with many people wishing the game had featured a different start date. What caused them to fall out of popularity, either with the game developers or the fans, so much?
retard
>>2272254rude>>2272252I guess because the AI will have played your nation for a couple decades or centuries depending on the bookmark and will have made a lot of shitty decisions so its better to get the country as early as possible to ensure a smooth run. The only bookmark I've played was the 1776 american independence one for the achievement in 4 and there's a lot of retarded stuff there.
>>2272252>What caused them to fall out of popularityin the past there was less scrutiny on historical accuracythere are many fans who are extremely autistic about historicity, enough that even if they are a minority they are a big enough one that paradox cares what they have to say (at least partially because they say it really loudly)lots of time periods have very poor record keeping and rely on guesswork to fill them in, getting worse the farther from europe you getso back in the crusader kings 2 days it was enough to go "ehhhh we dont have historical records from this area let's just fill it in with whatever"now it's harder to do that and requires more workthe more bookmarks that get added, especially as the map expands, so they decided to cut extra bookmarks and just focus on the one start date
>>2272252They were never popular though? So pdx stopped making them unless it sells DLCs
>>2272252I can't find an official explanation, but the consensus is that it was a huge amount of work for a feature that most players never interact with. Of all the games I've played, only perhaps a handful took place outside of the established start dates and several of those were the "Bronze Man" campaigns that PDX highlighted to hype CK3.
>>2272252Most people play the earliest start date and also because paradox wants to save on their coin
>>2272252Stop pretending anyone ever used these. There's a lot to hate about paradox but this isn't it.
>>2272252even i eu3 no one played any other start dates besides the defaukt. Maye ck2 because some would play 1066 or the earlier starts. No one ever played the later starts
>>2272252Every time you make a patch for the game you have to make sure every single start date is balanced. That's a lot of work, especially when as others here have said none played those start dates.
>>2272412>you have to make sure every single start date is balanced.Tell that to the EU4 devs who didn't bother doing that with any of the later starts
>>2272394Eu3 start date is honesty pretty messy in much the same way the EU5 startdate is. Though, I will admit, I've mostly played 1399 as well.It's funny since I do use bookmarks in Koei strategy games.
>>2272252People didn't really use the alternate start dates unless they were going achievement hunting.Now, barring the obvious 1444, what other start dates should EU5 have?
>>2272430>1444Honestly feels pointless outside of it's popularity due to EU4. 1453 feels better. 1421 feels better. Even 1399 feels better.Outside of it: 1650 feels like a solid choice. Basically just do the last two ages. Prussia wank would feel justified for once. Large declining empires like Ottoman and Spain could be intresting. UK could actually be played as a naval power without needing to waste time with the hundred years war.
>>2272413and barely anyone played those unless they wanted to do memey shit https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgxPn6_ecm4
>>2272446I think another start date close to the end would round things out well. 1775 or 1789.
>>2272430I think 1444 was to set up the ottomans while also keeping byzantium playablehow doable would eu5 mechanics byzantium be in a 1444 start position? Like other anon said 1399 or 1453 are better
>>2272466Could be good for USA wank. But I honestly feel it's more fun to start out as a colonial nation. 1789 just seems like March of the Eagles 2.
>>2272469It basically allowed them to feature popular things like the hundred year war or Byzantium without focusing too much on them. I remember them saying in EU4 dev diaries that Ottoman and Russia really struggled in eu3(Which feels accurate to my experience) and the move was also partially motivated by that.
>>2272482How much of Russia's problem was the godawfull last patch to eu3 they did where you had to fully colonize a horde province to take it and if you didn't colonize it fast enough all your progress was ruined in the truce?
>>2272473Since EU5 runs until 1836, March of the Eagles 2 isn't coming out anytime soon. Best to take advantage of the extended runtime.
>>2272491Fair. Assuming they add a lot of content for Napoleon they might as well add a bookmark.
>>2272488Not 100% sure since I never played pre patch. Golden horde seems set up to either explode or get colonized... and then just kind of doesn't.
>paradox shill thread #9001
>>2272491>>2272494no way they will actually build mechanisms waried enough that it can handle the world in the 18th century without breaking down
>a thread has died for yet more paraslop spamBuy a fucking ad faggot
>>2272296This, my theory is that Iron Century was supposed to be the only start date in CK3Evidence is as follow:>Iron Century book was introduced to CK2 very late in development when CK3 starting pre-production>Iron Century exists as a compromise between 867 and 1066>Still having vikings but also less messyI presume many people didn't try Iron Century in CK3 so they scrapped the idea and just did both 1066 and 867
>>2272252People rarely played them outside of CK2 where players would alternate between two of them. As they added provinces to a game, they'd have to go back and adjust every bookmark to accomodate the changes. By the end of EU4's active development, for example, the bookmarks were just left really broken due to neglect.
It's a relict from the times, when video game had a simulationist and educational ideal. Like a tool for historical reenactment. That has shifted and now Paradox games are just a vehicle for autistic, socially disabled gamers, who have an extremely meme-centric view of history and want to perfectly recreate the Roman Empire with the EXACT SAME BORDERS it used to have at it's greatest extent without any regard for the changed geopolitical and social context.
>>2272252>It's strange to meThat's because you're a dumb fuck>people wishing the game had featured a different start date.That's how you are selling DLCs and expansions, you dumb cunt
>>2272845>Implying at any point PDX was about anything else than bunch of Swedes trying to figure out how to turn a convoluted board game about escapism into a video game about escapismBut the funniest part is that when EU1 dropped, you weren't even sperm yet, yet go full "/vsg/, what was (not really) in the past..."
>>2272880Wrong.You are now choking on my cock and can do nothing about it. Bye.
>>2272912But I'm not your mom
>>2272430nothing really. Lategsme sucks so much
>>2272252over 90% of games are played on the earliest start date in all their gamesmost players do not care about alternate scenariosthe most surprising is hoi4 since in hoi3 gotterdammerung was relatively popular
>>2272430>>2272446Yeah 1444 is only a start date because with 1453 people couldn't play as the Byzantines.
>>2273519That and making the Ottomans start in a truce with a bunch of strong European nations so that they don't get ganged up on early
>>2272504They didn't, late game EU5 crashes constantly
>>2273282> hoi3 gotterdammerung was relatively popularIt was popular as a challenge. If HOI4 had it as a start date it would probably still see some play.
>>2273597>wanting to delay the formation of Vikramāditya
>>2273525That's not why
>>2272252I miss them but it's a lot of effort for little gain and as the maps become more detailed it becomes harder work to maintain them.
>>2272924my mistake wrong hole.
>>2272252Because nobody, and I mean nobody, ever used anything but the earliest start date outside of Crusader Kings. Plus their games were less complex back then and usually only got 1 or 2 expansions for being put to bed.Now Paradox games last for 15 years and are so complex with so many different modifiers and POPs and information and mana and shit, there’s just no way the devs could maintain more than 3 start dates max. Imagine how much work it would take to keep the literacy of a Burgher POP in some tiny HRE state updated for the war of the quadruple alliance meme bookmark that nobody would ever play. And then 5 years after game release Paradox decided they want to divide burghers into capitalists and merchants or some shit and now you have to go through all the bookmarks dividing them up.
>>2272252>What caused them to fall out of popularityNobody plays them, nigger. If you pick a later start day you're shortening the total time you can play. Even if you won't play that long, why do it?
I thought the bookmarks were neat only so far as it was fun to look around and see the different maps of the situations. Actually them is boring as hell. I remember loading up the 7 Years' war scenario and having the main war partners peace out for scraps within less than one year.
I'm glad they started with a radical new bookmark but they need something in the 1400s-1500s
>>2273925Because you want to experience later timelines, and you'll probably never reach late 1100s in CK3 or 1600s-1700s in most games starting from 1337 in EU5
>>2273931The ones in EU2 were fairly fun. EU3 wars are comedically fucked and poorly handled due to lack of scripting.
>>2273931>I thought the bookmarks were neat only so far as it was fun to look around and see the different maps of the situations.I unironically think it has potential as a learning tool, like if there was a map browser that basically did that where you could select a year and see borders and some citations(like borders less reliable and mean different things depending on the year, etc) that would be great for giving people a clearer sense of the world.
>>2273597I doubt it since there's no ebin alt histormeme focuserinoes.
>>2272252>fall out of popularitythey were never popular, their purpose was for the player to scroll along the unfolding of history while listening to the main menu themethe only other use was for specific countries that were only available on that date (CSA in victoria 2, USA in EU3/4)
>>2274079google geacron
>>2274902Awesome
The only reason people did not play the other bookmarks is because nothing about the game changed with the date and map painting is the only purpose of playing. Take Ck2 for example, there's a good argument for playing in 1000 over 700 depending on what you feel like doing. Even in Victoria 2 with some mods you would have legitimate reasons to play different start dates. If EU5 had an actually decent battle system you would see people playing pike n shot eras or napoleonic eras over the earliest start dates. But with the current game mechanics its like saying you want to play Civilization at a later tech. There's no reason to.
>>2272362I would use it for EU V. Every other game has a decent 'main' start date.
>>2272252Two reasons. One, every new start date means a lot of extra work to be done on top of what already exists. Two, this amount of work was not justified because the vast majority of players would just pick the earliest date.
>>2272430>what other start dates should EU5 have?At least one around the siege of Vienna.
>>2272252>What caused them to fall out of popularity, either with the game developers or the fans, so much?They would take a retarded amount of work to implement, as the province count and map density of the games has increased exponentially. And hardly anyone plays any bookmarks other than the normal one.
