The 1880 start?

[marcusjm]

I was a bit unsure about this. Is this scheduled for a patch or DLC?

Personally I think this start will be perfect for mp games. Somewhat shorter but not only that, Japan becomes much more interesting due to having some modernization etc.

[PhilThib]

It's the next planned GC

[marcusjm]

Was this for the DLC plans or will it be patched in?

[PhilThib]

Not decided yet anyway...will see next month

[Romtos]

I'd fine to pay for a 1880 GC DLC. Feel like I underpaid for PoN anyway.

Any changes of future pre-1850 GC's? 1815 or even 18th century start dates could be awesome.

[Christophe.Barot]

anything pre 1848 implies a lot of thinking and coding imho

1848 revolutions were cataclysmic - they were temporarily crushed, but their success could have drastically changed the nature of political regimes and balance of power

think about it - Austro-Hungary could well no longer exist, prussia be liberal, Poland independant (even russia, heavens forbid, be constitutional - liberal, lol, don't dream), Italy united ....

this si a very different world that the one we are accustomed to know, and task wouldn't be how to replicate historical array of possibles, but to advance in uncharted territory. that requires a very foolproof underlying system.

I'm not telling it is impossible, will not happen, or will happen (this is up to pocus and Philthib, only they know) - just pointing out that anything beyond 1920 or before 1850 is structurally different, and prone to structure a game, any game, from a strictly historical; point of view.

[marcusjm]

The way Pax Britannica worked was like this. It started 1880 and ended once all the major powers were at war with eachother. WW1 was out of scope for that game.

I think a similar scenario would be perfect for PON. 1880 until maybe 3 or more major powers are at war in Europe.

I am not sure if this game makes any distinction on colonial wars and continental European wars though.

[Romtos]

Thanks Christophe.Barot, interesting there are practical issues (as in engine contraints) linked to the historical events. I understand the issues you describe, though leaving your mark on history is one point of these games.

Perhaps the problems linked with pre-1848 scenarios could be better addressed with expansion introduced features (revolutionary mechanics?) rather than plain DLC.

[Zap Brannigan]

A 1900/1901 GC start would seem like a good option - with the amount of effort put into modelling early aircraft / new technologies it would be a shame if most players barely used it because the normal GC is very long - plus Japan is really hitting it's stride.

[Mirandasucre]

1875 better please.....i still want US far west things....custer's campaign etc...

[PhilThib]

Not decided yet between 1875 and 1880, there are pros and cons for each

[McNaughton]

One of the problems about having a start too close to 1870 is that the French will be extremely weakened (by their FPW defeat). The further from 1870 the better for game balance. Unfortunately, there is no 'optimal year' for all nations, given that 1877 has an interesting start for Russia, 1878 for that of Great Britain, 1875 for the United States, 1868 for Japan, etc.

If one aspect is not addressed (i.e., Russo-Turkish War, United States western campaign, etc.) that will probably be taken up by a scenario. Most of the research done has been based upon an 1878-80 start (the beginning of the rush of colonialization).

[marcusjm]

Still, from 1880 and onwards it was a fairly level field when it came to colonization and involvement in World affairs. Japan were of course lagging but still had a chance to make an impression in East Asia.

1880 or the other idea of 1900 would be perfect for mp games in my book.

[McNaughton]

Still, from 1880 and onwards it was a fairly level field when it came to colonization and involvement in World affairs. Japan were of course lagging but still had a chance to make an impression in East Asia.

1880 or the other idea of 1900 would be perfect for mp games in my book.

Who says it is just one or the other, why not both?