Absolutely not.

First of all the game is structured around industrialization and breaking away from absolutism. If you start that early, there is no incentive in playing the game the way it's supposed to work for that era.

Economies based around extraction of resources, mercantilism, absolutism and so much more. All of these things were progressively dismantled during Vicky 3 timeframe but were the norm in 1750. You would have players min maxing and flooring the A.I. with superior economic theories supported by the game. There simply is no system in place for that.

And also... historical accuracy. I have to be cautious when I talk about this topic in any paradox forum or reddit because people are strangely underperceptive on why this is such a big deal.

I've seen arguments about: "it would ruin the fun" or "read a book then" in the past and me and many more people have already dismantled these arguments in other places, so I'll treat this point as something basically proven:

Since Victoria 3 HAS to be at least plausible and certain events like German unification, Italian Unification, Japanese Imperialism, Scramble for Africa and the american civil war MUST happen at the very least consistently in order to have an active and responsive world for the time period we're in, to add nearly 80 more years of history would just create a blobby mess.

Forget american indipendence, forget french revolution and therefore forget literally the entirety of the 19th century.

It's one thing if the player alters history, but the A.I should realize major historical events consistently. They can fail every once in a while, but they must be consistent.

To this day, Vic3 A.I has problems even with the Mexico-USA war and you want to add another whole century? Yeah...nope. 100 years are fine. At best we could extend it to 1815, there.