Europa Universalis IV - Winds of Change + 1.37 Free Patch & New Monuments

[Bleopsome]

What I'm seeing is:
1. Start as Kilwa or Mali
2. Get controlled gold mining privilege
3. Take a trip to Bratislava
4. Dev gold mines as much as you want for no drawback.

Ethiopia gets controlled privilege too and they’re closer

 

[Kyoumen]

Don't pretend to know what nobody knows.

The number of events and chains of events that change in Eu4 is just incalculable and you claim to know what would happen when even if we assembled all the computing power of all the supercomputers in the world we wouldn't be able to recreate even a single universe.

Wanting a game like Eu4 to be faithful to history flies in the face of logic. The game itself is just a simulation of history, the main aim of which is to build alternative scenarios.

What matters then is whether it's a scenario that's imaginable and interesting to play.

If your aim is to be faithful to history, I've got a solution for you: read history books. Eu4 is a game, not an academic discipline.

Then give Hungary their dragonriders. Have a zombie invasion disaster. Copy Anbennar's magic system. They all could be interesting to play and are imaginable. What difference does it make that they have nothing to do with history and are impossible?

And yes, the Aztecs invading Europe and establishing colonies is EXACTLY as possible as zombies, and just about as rooted in history.

I want EUIV and its successors to be BASED on history. It's a silly strawman to say that means I want a 100% accurate simulation of history. I pointed out myself that the Timurids conquering China was very unlikely, but unlike the Sunset Invasion, it was an ambition rooted in history and actually at least possible. It does not limit the game to stay that much in touch with reality, as shown by the fact the vast majority of countries in the game fall into the same category as the Timurid tree.

 

[ShinogiSatou]

well, where's sprites for Renish (misspelling of Rhenish) and Westphalian?

 

[ShinogiSatou]

well, where's sprites for Renish (misspelling of Rhenish) and Westphalian?

 

[m1061619]

This is all mostly good stuff (I particularly appreciate the generic mission rework and the female advisor portraits for native cultures), but there is one thing I do take issue with (not because I think it can or would be changed at this point, but to challenge the thinking that lay behind it for future development): the Sunset Invasion. Now, I had no problem with that in CK2; it was a separate fantasy scenario and marketed as such.

This, however, is a main part of the content for the Incas/Aztecs/Maya in a game which actually features them historically, and that I do have an issue with.

It is, to put it bluntly, nonsense. It couldn't happen. It's as plausible as giving Hungary dragons and a dragonrider corps as a special unit. It has nothing whatsoever to do with history or what the historical incarnations of those states could have done if they survived.

Let me put by way of comparison a similar "endgame goal": the Timurid ambition to conquer China and restore the Yuan. It's historically based as Timur did wish to do this. It is unlikely (not least because the age of vast steppe empires was in its final flower in the 15th century) but not impossible to imagine another truly gifted ruler and conqueror rising to power, reuniting the empire and setting their sights on that goal. If the stars aligned just right, it could happen. It is plausible.

The Sunset Invasion is nothing like that. It could not have happened if the stars aligned right. It could not have happened at all. It has nothing to do with the historical or realistic objectives of the polities in question. It's absurd in the same sense as the Holy Horde was absurd (or that Gotland pirate nonsense), and like that, I don't think it should be part of primary game content in a historical game (though I would say the Sunset Invasion is even worse as it's a natural endpoint rather than an optional path). I actually would have no issue with stuff like this in an explicit fantasy DLC alongside equally plausible things like zombie pandemics, and you could toggle whether you wanted the silly things in the game, much like the fantasy content in Random New World, but I hate seeing it here. It's not even going to say having it "took away" from more serious development for those tags, but having it in the mental space at all for "Aztec mission tree development" inevitably distorts thinking about what endgame SHOULD be for those tags.

(On a related note, this is also what I think of the intended Byzantine endgame of moving the capital to Rome, ending the schism, proclaiming themselves what they already called themselves, and so forth. It's silly nonsense. They HAD Rome and didn't move the capital back there. Nobody would even have considered it in the absurdly unlikely scenario that they could have controlled it again. Orthodox and Catholic are two different religions by this point and you cannot fix that without exterminating one side. It is impossible to turn back the clock 1000 years and just reinstate the Imperium of Augustus or Trajan willy-nilly, nobody would want to do this or even think of it, and it would fail miserably if tried. It has no place being part of the default experience for a historical country in a historical game, which should focus on at least vaguely plausible scenarios for a wildly successful version of that country.)

Honestly I largely agree with you as I personally feel modern paradox has veered too far into meme territory as their older games were largely more grounded and realistic but that's just me.

 

[caih09]

I would suggest adding Mukden Palace (Yes, the picture on the Manchu loading screen) as the new Monument in manchuria since the buff with the same name is removed in Domination DLC. After all, they are horde too

 

[Keksburg]

as their older games were largely more grounded and realistic

Vicky3 has a game option to disallow some historical impossible formation of nation -- kinda an attempt to honor the old PDX style.

Anyway, EUIV covers about 400 yrs so many things are possible. Such problem mainly exists in the feature contents of HOI4 I think. (That's why I prefer the historical realistic style of Kaiserreich the mod very much).

 

[General_de_Gaulle02]

Then give Hungary their dragonriders. Have a zombie invasion disaster. Copy Anbennar's magic system. They all could be interesting to play and are imaginable. What difference does it make that they have nothing to do with history and are impossible?

And yes, the Aztecs invading Europe and establishing colonies is EXACTLY as possible as zombies, and just about as rooted in history.

I want EUIV and its successors to be BASED on history. It's a silly strawman to say that means I want a 100% accurate simulation of history. I pointed out myself that the Timurids conquering China was very unlikely, but unlike the Sunset Invasion, it was an ambition rooted in history and actually at least possible. It does not limit the game to stay that much in touch with reality, as shown by the fact the vast majority of countries in the game fall into the same category as the Timurid tree.

I'm honoured to be dealing with a transcendental consciousness that dictates what could and could not have happened in history.

You say that according to the history of the Aztecs, it's impossible for them to colonise Europe. I admit that's not the most likely scenario, but impossible? So I suppose you've travelled through billions and billions and billions of possible universes, changing just one parameter each time to verify your hypothesis. Especially since to succeed in colonising Europe, you need an empire in America, so the Aztecs would already be very powerful and very different from what they have been throughout history, so why shouldn't they consider expanding? You're talking about the roots of the Aztecs, and that's just as well, because on 11 November 1444 you changed the destiny of the Aztecs and therefore potentially everything they are and could have been.

But I can understand your concern for realism. And to reassure you:
- The AI will never succeed.
- As a result, only a player will choose such a path.
- If a player has chosen to play the Sunset Invasion, it's because he's decided to expand into Europe. Or are you also going to ban it because you don't like it because it's not historical?

You know what's great about Eu4 is that you have CHOICE. You want to play a historical game, go for it. You want to invade the whole world with Ryukyu, go for it. You want a fun challenge by invading Europe with the Aztecs, go for it.

So the problem isn't that you can't play a historical game, but that you want to prevent other players from thinking outside the box in the name of your sacrosanct historicism, which is absurd in this context.

I say BRAVO PARADOX for daring to do something different. Because when I play Eu4, I also want to be entitled to a bit of dreaming, to open up the field of possibilities and not restrict it. For history fanatics, 99% of mission trees are limited to historical ambitions, so leave the 1% imagination to those who want it.

And at the end of the day, it will surely be thanks to the Sunset invasion that people will play more in America.

 

[Kyoumen]

You say that according to the history of the Aztecs, it's impossible for them to colonise Europe. I admit that's not the most likely scenario, but impossible?

Yes. It's impossible. I could explain why it's impossible at some length, but I don't really get the impression you're interested in a respectful and honest discussion on the subject, given all the strawmanning and insults and whatnot. But to be quite clear: You could run the simulation a billion times and it would never, ever happen. Aztecs colonising Europe in EUIV's timeframe requires literal magic or quantum miracles and thus is just as plausible as Hungarian dragonriders and zombie plagues.

It also has literally nothing to do with any historical or plausible goals for those states. As for why I consider that an issue when, yes, the game won't actively stop you from conquering Europe or the entire world as the Aztecs or Inca, refer to my original post.

Have a good day, and do have fun flapping your arms to fly while sneering at people telling you that it's impossible.

 

[Korsjan Rīkis]

I would suggest adding Mukden Palace (Yes, the picture on the Manchu loading screen) as the new Monument in manchuria since the buff with the same name is removed in Domination DLC. After all, they are horde too

That's what I have been asking since the Origins, but, sadly, with no luck so far. I hope it will get added with a free patch, at least, if this is really the last DLC (I still hope for an Immersion Pack).

 

[ondansultan]

add the project to the Turkestan location, there should be a Mausoleum of Khozha Akhmet Yasawi built by Tamerlane. You can add the Karakhanid mausoleum project to the Taraz location, which is also a UNESCO heritage

 

[currylambchop]

Yes. It's impossible. I could explain why it's impossible at some length, but I don't really get the impression you're interested in a respectful and honest discussion on the subject, given all the strawmanning and insults and whatnot. But to be quite clear: You could run the simulation a billion times and it would never, ever happen. Aztecs colonising Europe in EUIV's timeframe requires literal magic or quantum miracles and thus is just as plausible as Hungarian dragonriders and zombie plagues.

Ottomans in 200 years went from a tiny Beylik to a tricontinental Empire, Britain went from a backwater country on the fringes of Europe to conquering one of the most populous regions of Asia, why couldn’t Aztec attack and conquer parts of Europe if they prepared for 400 years?

 

[Flower_Marlin]

Soyurghals are only available for Timurids and not Mughals?

 

[Dark_wing]

Would it be possible to open up the new Coring Range Monument for the Inca as well? It's intention seems to be to help with an early sunset invasion. I would like to bring Europe the light of Inti, but the monument is only for Nahuatl.
Given the Inca had a habit of co-opting foreign deities as Huacas, it wouldn't even be that far out there for them to appropriate mesoamerican religious sites if they conquer the region.

 

[Kyoumen]

Ottomans in 200 years went from a tiny Beylik to a tricontinental Empire, Britain went from a backwater country on the fringes of Europe to conquering one of the most populous regions of Asia, why couldn’t Aztec attack and conquer parts of Europe if they prepared for 400 years?

Because the conditions that existed that made it possible for Spain to do what it did do not exist the other way around, and could not exist the other way around.

Firstly, the technological difference. This is actually somewhat overblown in pop history about the events surrounding the collapse of the Aztec and Inca Empires (Cortes lost battles and also lost all his cannons fleeing Tenochtitlan; the Spanish soldiers also in many cases changed out their metal armour for native armours because trying to wear metal armour in the jungle is not exactly fun), but is still relevant. Spanish soldiers were an Out of Context Problem for native realms in the New World, particularly due to the shock value of their guns and especially the terror caused by their horses. This cannot be reversed. It is impossible for a native state the shock the Europeans this way or to surpass them in technology to that point in a mere 400 years. Catch up, yes. If they survived and had absolutely great leadership and some luck that could happen. But it is not possible to realistically imagine them surpassing the Europeans to the level where they'd have a great technological advantage in that timeframe, and it is even more absurd to imagine it resembling the mismatch when 1500s Europeans met natives still using stone tools who had never seen a horse.

Second, the actual reason Cortes won against the Aztecs: disease. Native states and tribes would be repeatedly plagued by disease that would kill far more people than were ever killed in direct conflict. Some advanced native states in the Americas collapsed due to this without ever even seeing a white person. The effect of this cannot be overstated and would continue to ravage native populations throughout the timeframe of the game. This cannot be avoided. It means that even a surviving native state would still be repeatedly and inescapably weakened by waves of disease that ripped through the population, killed important leaders, and so on. It also means that even if you could get a native army to Europe (this has its own problems), it will start melting quickly not unlike the French in Haiti. This obviously makes holding any kind of territory a quixotic and doomed exercise as no state in this period can just keep pouring thousands of fighting men endlessly to hold functionally useless territory.

Third, the essential differences between Europe and the Americas. Europe is tiny and fairly densely populated. The Americas are vast, and even before the population collapses large portions of it were not densely populated. This means there are essential differences in how an expedition could proceed. The Spaniards could land in lightly populated areas and even areas that had no native opposition at all, set up a base camp, and explore inland. Many areas had no central government to react even to aggressive moves. This is not true of Europe, and can not realistically be true in this timeframe. Even if, say, Spain collapses into anarchy (possible if unlikely), it would be a temporary situation that would be quickly rectified from within by someone pulling together the warring factions or from without as powers like France and Portugal would opportunistically move in against little opposition. There is no feasible window for natives to get a foothold in Europe the way Spain could get a foothold in the Americas. You would have to give them a prophecy of an already very unlikely event (a European country collapsing into such anarchy that no centralised opposition to an invasion is possible, bearing in mind feudalism means there would almost always still be at least local armies available even if the central government isn't functioning) for them to take advantage of the moment before the window closed or much closer powers moved in. Then they couldn't hold it anyway because their armies would be at the end of insane supply lines and would be dying in droves.

Fourth, logistics. Despite what EUIV would have you believe, it was not really possible for Spain to send 20,000 men across the Atlantic to go wipe out the natives in 1500. It is similarly impossible for the natives to do the same (and they would have to fight in huge numbers to win, as they would never enjoy the technological advantage and shock value or guns and horses that the Spanish did over them, as noted previously). And if they did, not only would they die in droves, the logistics of supplying and reinforcing such an army would be impossible. An Aztec invasion of Europe is trying to do a much bigger and riskier version of the Normandy invasion centuries early, and there is a reason that is the biggest seaborne invasion in history and that it had no precedent in the EUIV period. This is doubly true since it is obviously impossible for any native state to overcome the technological gap and master European shipbuilding (which they would have little reason to do when beset by a host of other problems due to waves of disease decimating the population, being pressured by colonial states, etc.) in a short span of time; even if you make everything go in the absolute best way possible, it's the 1600s, much more likely that 1700s before they could even conceivably field an army that can fight on completely equal terms (note that will involve getting their own horses, learning to breed them, and training cavalry, all of which native tribes did do in real life but takes time; it also involves advanced metallurgy that they have little to none of at 1492) and build the huge fleets of ships that could transport it across the ocean, and Europe is rapidly getting stronger and its states more centralised at that point.

The closest thing to a "realistic" scenario for a native invasion of Europe would be for an advanced native state to survive contact (unlikely, since none of them did, but possible, with the Inca probably being the best bet given their geographic location, being a fairly young empire that didn't have a completely ossified structure, and their powerbase being in mountains), have enough contact and conflict with Europeans to both appreciate European advantages and acquire the means to replicate them (also hard, since it's far more likely that e.g., a surviving Inca would be dealing with internal problems and rather complacent to the idea of a seemingly unlikely foreign attack, which to be fair is actually unlikely outside of conquistadores and other tiny groups due to aforementioned logistical issues for at least a century post-contact), and then to have Europe's population almost completely wiped out in a Years of Rice & Salt scenario while at the same time an insane Sapa Inca wants to pour the treasury into building a gargantuan fleet of no practical use to the state in order to transport a large army across an ocean while at the same time just ignoring the far more relevant threats at home.

To do this would require a nearly unbroken line of far-sighted genius rulers that can weather the troubles that destroyed every advanced native state in real life as well as navigate all the conflicts with increasingly strong colonial states (and restless subjugated tribes the Europeans would be happily stirring up and funding), none of these rulers dying of disease or other reasons at the worst times and destabilising the state fatally, a rapidly successful advancement of technology including technology that has no immediate practical use for a state that is dealing with massive internal and external threats at nearly all times, and then someone who's willing to risk it all on a quixotic venture that can only actually succeed if a magical plague has killed most or all of the Europeans yet somehow is not killing the natives with their much weaker immune systems in even greater numbers. Then, and only then, could you get a native "colony" in Europe which could last more than a year or two as an absolute best case scenario.

Or, in other words: it's impossible, and has nothing at all to do with any historic or realistic goals and aspirations of a surviving native state.

 

[General_de_Gaulle02]

Because the conditions that existed that made it possible for Spain to do what it did do not exist the other way around, and could not exist the other way around.

Firstly, the technological difference. This is actually somewhat overblown in pop history about the events surrounding the collapse of the Aztec and Inca Empires (Cortes lost battles and also lost all his cannons fleeing Tenochtitlan; the Spanish soldiers also in many cases changed out their metal armour for native armours because trying to wear metal armour in the jungle is not exactly fun), but is still relevant. Spanish soldiers were an Out of Context Problem for native realms in the New World, particularly due to the shock value of their guns and especially the terror caused by their horses. This cannot be reversed. It is impossible for a native state the shock the Europeans this way or to surpass them in technology to that point in a mere 400 years. Catch up, yes. If they survived and had absolutely great leadership and some luck that could happen. But it is not possible to realistically imagine them surpassing the Europeans to the level where they'd have a great technological advantage in that timeframe, and it is even more absurd to imagine it resembling the mismatch when 1500s Europeans met natives still using stone tools who had never seen a horse.

Second, the actual reason Cortes won against the Aztecs: disease. Native states and tribes would be repeatedly plagued by disease that would kill far more people than were ever killed in direct conflict. Some advanced native states in the Americas collapsed due to this without ever even seeing a white person. The effect of this cannot be overstated and would continue to ravage native populations throughout the timeframe of the game. This cannot be avoided. It means that even a surviving native state would still be repeatedly and inescapably weakened by waves of disease that ripped through the population, killed important leaders, and so on. It also means that even if you could get a native army to Europe (this has its own problems), it will start melting quickly not unlike the French in Haiti. This obviously makes holding any kind of territory a quixotic and doomed exercise as no state in this period can just keep pouring thousands of fighting men endlessly to hold functionally useless territory.

Third, the essential differences between Europe and the Americas. Europe is tiny and fairly densely populated. The Americas are vast, and even before the population collapses large portions of it were not densely populated. This means there are essential differences in how an expedition could proceed. The Spaniards could land in lightly populated areas and even areas that had no native opposition at all, set up a base camp, and explore inland. Many areas had no central government to react even to aggressive moves. This is not true of Europe, and can not realistically be true in this timeframe. Even if, say, Spain collapses into anarchy (possible if unlikely), it would be a temporary situation that would be quickly rectified from within by someone pulling together the warring factions or from without as powers like France and Portugal would opportunistically move in against little opposition. There is no feasible window for natives to get a foothold in Europe the way Spain could get a foothold in the Americas. You would have to give them a prophecy of an already very unlikely event (a European country collapsing into such anarchy that no centralised opposition to an invasion is possible, bearing in mind feudalism means there would almost always still be at least local armies available even if the central government isn't functioning) for them to take advantage of the moment before the window closed or much closer powers moved in. Then they couldn't hold it anyway because their armies would be at the end of insane supply lines and would be dying in droves.

Fourth, logistics. Despite what EUIV would have you believe, it was not really possible for Spain to send 20,000 men across the Atlantic to go wipe out the natives in 1500. It is similarly impossible for the natives to do the same (and they would have to fight in huge numbers to win, as they would never enjoy the technological advantage and shock value or guns and horses that the Spanish did over them, as noted previously). And if they did, not only would they die in droves, the logistics of supplying and reinforcing such an army would be impossible. An Aztec invasion of Europe is trying to do a much bigger and riskier version of the Normandy invasion centuries early, and there is a reason that is the biggest seaborne invasion in history and that it had no precedent in the EUIV period. This is doubly true since it is obviously impossible for any native state to overcome the technological gap and master European shipbuilding (which they would have little reason to do when beset by a host of other problems due to waves of disease decimating the population, being pressured by colonial states, etc.) in a short span of time; even if you make everything go in the absolute best way possible, it's the 1600s, much more likely that 1700s before they could even conceivably field an army that can fight on completely equal terms (note that will involve getting their own horses, learning to breed them, and training cavalry, all of which native tribes did do in real life but takes time; it also involves advanced metallurgy that they have little to none of at 1492) and build the huge fleets of ships that could transport it across the ocean, and Europe is rapidly getting stronger and its states more centralised at that point.

The closest thing to a "realistic" scenario for a native invasion of Europe would be for an advanced native state to survive contact (unlikely, since none of them did, but possible, with the Inca probably being the best bet given their geographic location, being a fairly young empire that didn't have a completely ossified structure, and their powerbase being in mountains), have enough contact and conflict with Europeans to both appreciate European advantages and acquire the means to replicate them (also hard, since it's far more likely that e.g., a surviving Inca would be dealing with internal problems and rather complacent to the idea of a seemingly unlikely foreign attack, which to be fair is actually unlikely outside of conquistadores and other tiny groups due to aforementioned logistical issues for at least a century post-contact), and then to have Europe's population almost completely wiped out in a Years of Rice & Salt scenario while at the same time an insane Sapa Inca wants to pour the treasury into building a gargantuan fleet of no practical use to the state in order to transport a large army across an ocean while at the same time just ignoring the far more relevant threats at home.

To do this would require a nearly unbroken line of far-sighted genius rulers that can weather the troubles that destroyed every advanced native state in real life as well as navigate all the conflicts with increasingly strong colonial states (and restless subjugated tribes the Europeans would be happily stirring up and funding), none of these rulers dying of disease or other reasons at the worst times and destabilising the state fatally, a rapidly successful advancement of technology including technology that has no immediate practical use for a state that is dealing with massive internal and external threats at nearly all times, and then someone who's willing to risk it all on a quixotic venture that can only actually succeed if a magical plague has killed most or all of the Europeans yet somehow is not killing the natives with their much weaker immune systems in even greater numbers. Then, and only then, could you get a native "colony" in Europe which could last more than a year or two as an absolute best case scenario.

Or, in other words: it's impossible, and has nothing at all to do with any historic or realistic goals and aspirations of a surviving native state.

I'm glad you've finally deigned to argue your reasoning, on the basis of which I can reply to you, instead of simply asserting something and wanting people to automatically believe you.

Firstly, the technological difference. This is actually somewhat overblown in pop history about the events surrounding the collapse of the Aztec and Inca Empires (Cortes lost battles and also lost all his cannons fleeing Tenochtitlan; the Spanish soldiers also in many cases changed out their metal armour for native armours because trying to wear metal armour in the jungle is not exactly fun), but is still relevant. Spanish soldiers were an Out of Context Problem for native realms in the New World, particularly due to the shock value of their guns and especially the terror caused by their horses. This cannot be reversed. It is impossible for a native state the shock the Europeans this way or to surpass them in technology to that point in a mere 400 years. Catch up, yes. If they survived and had absolutely great leadership and some luck that could happen. But it is not possible to realistically imagine them surpassing the Europeans to the level where they'd have a great technological advantage in that timeframe, and it is even more absurd to imagine it resembling the mismatch when 1500s Europeans met
natives still using stone tools who had never seen a horse.

It's indisputable that indigenous peoples will lag behind Europeans in terms of technology. What makes the most sense is that the Europeans will have a huge advantage in the early years until the Aztecs have had enough time to understand European technologies and adapt them through trade, alliances or simply stealing them from the newcomers, as the Europeans did with China. Once again, for the Aztecs to be able to defend themselves against the Europeans, they would have to own the whole of Mexico, so they would already be much more powerful than in reality. What's more, the Aztecs were no more stupid than the Europeans, and just as capable of innovation as they were. In fact, at the time, Europeans were copying the Chinese. As a reminder, Cortes succeeded in defeating the Aztec empire with just a few hundred men, more through his diplomatic skills than anything else. Even armed with light sabres, I wouldn't put my hand to the fire for so few troops.

Second, the actual reason Cortes won against the Aztecs: disease. Native states and tribes would be repeatedly plagued by disease that would kill far more people than were ever killed in direct conflict. Some advanced native states in the Americas collapsed due to this without ever even seeing a white person. The effect of this cannot be overstated and would continue to ravage native populations throughout the timeframe of the game. This cannot be avoided. It means that even a surviving native state would still be repeatedly and inescapably weakened by waves of disease that ripped through the population, killed important leaders, and so on. It also means that even if you could get a native army to Europe (this has its own problems), it will start melting quickly not unlike the French in Haiti. This obviously makes holding any kind of territory a quixotic and doomed exercise as no state in this period can just keep pouring thousands of fighting men endlessly to hold functionally useless territory.

It's true that the disease caused a sharp fall in Mexico's population, but once again, we need to put things into context and put them into perspective. First of all, how did the population fall? Mexico's population fell from 22 million in 1520 to 2 million in 1600 as a result of three epidemics: the smallpox epidemic in 1520, which caused 8 million deaths, then the Cocoliztli epidemic in 1545, which caused 12 to 15 million deaths, and finally the second Cocoliztli epidemic in 1576, which caused 2 million deaths. It's an irrefutable fact that this sudden drop was due to the entry of new pathogens. Now, it has also been established that it was after the conquest of Mexico by the Spaniards and the fall in living standards and enslavement of the natives that this fall took place. If the Aztecs had resisted, they would have been able to maintain an infrastructure, set up quarantines and improve their medicine, and the death toll would have been irreversibly lower.

On the other hand, devastating epidemics do not necessarily mean the disappearance of states. Need I remind you of the Black Death, which decimated Europe and especially the cities, the centres of power?

What's more, the threat from Europe is far away, there's an ocean separating the Aztecs from Europe. So as long as they defended themselves, they could contain the thousands of Europeans arriving in America.

Finally, what we can at least predict is that, after the inevitably long adaptation period, the Aztecs will be as resistant to these infectious diseases as Europeans.

Third, the essential differences between Europe and the Americas. Europe is tiny and fairly densely populated. The Americas are vast, and even before the population collapses large portions of it were not densely populated. This means there are essential differences in how an expedition could proceed. The Spaniards could land in lightly populated areas and even areas that had no native opposition at all, set up a base camp, and explore inland. Many areas had no central government to react even to aggressive moves. This is not true of Europe, and can not realistically be true in this timeframe. Even if, say, Spain collapses into anarchy (possible if unlikely), it would be a temporary situation that would be quickly rectified from within by someone pulling together the warring factions or from without as powers like France and Portugal would opportunistically move in against little opposition. There is no feasible window for natives to get a foothold in Europe the way Spain could get a foothold in the Americas. You would have to give them a prophecy of an already very unlikely event (a European country collapsing into such anarchy that no centralised opposition to an invasion is possible, bearing in mind feudalism means there would almost always still be at least local armies available even if the central government isn't functioning) for them to take advantage of the moment before the window closed or much closer powers moved in. Then they couldn't hold it anyway because their armies would be at the end of insane supply lines and would be dying in droves.

Are you so sure that demographic power equals military power? I don't think the Mongols would agree.

After that, you're right, there is of course a gap in power between the Aztecs and the Europeans, but that's already represented in the game. The Aztecs are nowhere near as militarily powerful as Europe put together. However, here's the rub: Europe is not united, it's very often at war. And in the 16th and 17th centuries, it was in the midst of a religious war. As a result, the Aztecs were able to use the alliance system to gain a foothold in Europe. We can imagine that between the reformation and the Ottoman and Russian push, the Europeans would be in a very bad way in this scenario.

Fourth, logistics. Despite what EUIV would have you believe, it was not really possible for Spain to send 20,000 men across the Atlantic to go wipe out the natives in 1500. It is similarly impossible for the natives to do the same (and they would have to fight in huge numbers to win, as they would never enjoy the technological advantage and shock value or guns and horses that the Spanish did over them, as noted previously). And if they did, not only would they die in droves, the logistics of supplying and reinforcing such an army would be impossible. An Aztec invasion of Europe is trying to do a much bigger and riskier version of the Normandy invasion centuries early, and there is a reason that is the biggest seaborne invasion in history and that it had no precedent in the EUIV period. This is doubly true since it is obviously impossible for any native state to overcome the technological gap and master European shipbuilding (which they would have little reason to do when beset by a host of other problems due to waves of disease decimating the population, being pressured by colonial states, etc.) in a short span of time; even if you make everything go in the absolute best way possible, it's the 1600s, much more likely that 1700s before they could even conceivably field an army that can fight on completely equal terms (note that will involve getting their own horses, learning to breed them, and training cavalry, all of which native tribes did do in real life but takes time; it also involves advanced metallurgy that they have little to none of at 1492) and build the huge fleets of ships that could transport it across the ocean, and Europe is rapidly getting stronger and its states more centralised at that point.

The closest thing to a "realistic" scenario for a native invasion of Europe would be for an advanced native state to survive contact (unlikely, since none of them did, but possible, with the Inca probably being the best bet given their geographic location, being a fairly young empire that didn't have a completely ossified structure, and their powerbase being in mountains), have enough contact and conflict with Europeans to both appreciate European advantages and acquire the means to replicate them (also hard, since it's far more likely that e.g., a surviving Inca would be dealing with internal problems and rather complacent to the idea of a seemingly unlikely foreign attack, which to be fair is actually unlikely outside of conquistadores and other tiny groups due to aforementioned logistical issues for at least a century post-contact), and then to have Europe's population almost completely wiped out in a Years of Rice & Salt scenario while at the same time an insane Sapa Inca wants to pour the treasury into building a gargantuan fleet of no practical use to the state in order to transport a large army across an ocean while at the same time just ignoring the far more relevant threats at home.

You're assuming that the Aztecs are going to go to war against the whole of Europe at once. It's a process that's bound to take time. First they have to conquer advanced bases, prepare logistics and supplies for the troops, establish a network of alliances and then begin the invasion, first opportunistically and then more methodically. We can also imagine armies of European mercenaries financed by Mexican gold in the pay of the Aztecs.

You're talking about the years 1600-1700, and I tend to agree with you, even if I think we could go faster, but at least not till Reformation borns in Europe.

With European allies and gold from Mexico, that puts this opinion into perspective. Once again, Europe is not a block, it is killing each other. What's more, the Protestants may say to themselves, here, the Aztecs can help me against these Spanish papists, let's go to them. And it will be too late when they realise that the Aztecs are too powerful to be defeated once they are established in Europe.

To do this would require a nearly unbroken line of far-sighted genius rulers that can weather the troubles that destroyed every advanced native state in real life as well as navigate all the conflicts with increasingly strong colonial states (and restless subjugated tribes the Europeans would be happily stirring up and funding), none of these rulers dying of disease or other reasons at the worst times and destabilising the state fatally, a rapidly successful advancement of technology including technology that has no immediate practical use for a state that is dealing with massive internal and external threats at nearly all times, and then someone who's willing to risk it all on a quixotic venture that can only actually succeed if a magical plague has killed most or all of the Europeans yet somehow is not killing the natives with their much weaker immune systems in even greater numbers. Then, and only then, could you get a native "colony" in Europe which could last more than a year or two as an absolute best case scenario.

This applies to any game of Eu4 so... Eu4 remains a strategic GAME where the player sets his own objectives over 400 years. Nobody lives 400 years. You play a kind of national conscience that knows exactly what is going on in its kingdom, that is not the victim of plots against it, that can literally send a commander to the other side of the world immediately. The aim then is to achieve your ambitions, whatever they may be, by overcoming all the challenges and difficulties that stand in your way. And yes, the historical aspect is fundamental, and the mission trees and events help to represent this. But every part of Eu4 is an alternative history from 1444 onwards, the whole world evolves differently, and the more you play the more it inevitably changes.

Or, in other words: it's impossible, and has nothing at all to do with any historic or realistic goals and aspirations of a surviving native state.

In conclusion, it's not impossible. It's very uncertain, anyone with any sense understands that. but not impossible. And Eu4 is still a game where the player has a choice. If you don't like it, nobody will force you to play that course and the AI is predisposed to behave in a historical way. But I think that many players will be interested in this part of the world and will end up learning more about the history and civilisation of the Aztecs than by limiting the Aztecs to a part similar to our timeline, which makes no sense in a game like Eu4.

 

[honkajoki]

Normandy invasion centuries early, and there is a reason that is the biggest seaborne invasion in history and that it had no precedent in the EUIV period.

Some think the Mongol's attempted invasion of Japan, which happened before EU4 timeframe, was on a scale similar to Normandy invasion? Of course in both of those the distance to cover was a lot shorter than crossing the Atlantic.

 

[Kyoumen]

What's more, the Aztecs were no more stupid than the Europeans, and just as capable of innovation as they were.

I don't care to respond to you further on any other point, but I'll address this. In no way, shape or form am I implying that Aztecs, Inca, Maya or indeed anybody else were less intelligent or capable of innovation than Europeans. That has literally nothing to do with why a Sunset Invasion was impossible. Reverse the situation and the Europeans would be just as incapable of doing it.

Human beings can only work with the constraints of the time they live, the challenges they face, the knowledge they have and the resources they possess. That is why a Sunset Invasion is impossible regardless of how clever, brave or innovative the natives of the Americas might be. It's also why it is utterly impossible for Japan to defeat and occupy America in WWII, a very well known and virtually universally agreed upon opinion of historians despite the fact Japan had far more capability and opportunity to do so than any native state in the Americas did or could have had to invade Europe in EUIV's timeframe. It doesn't have anything to do with them being somehow lesser as human beings, it has to do with objective facts and hard realities about their situation.

 

[Kyoumen]

Some think the Mongol's attempted invasion of Japan, which happened before EU4 timeframe, was on a scale similar to Normandy invasion? Of course in both of those the distance to cover was a lot shorter than crossing the Atlantic.

To the best of my knowledge, historians believe the numbers given are exaggerated (as is almost always the case in ancient numbers for armies), though by how much they think they were exaggerated varies widely (Wikipedia note estimates of 1/10 and 1/2 the size).

Of course, those invasions failed despite the far shorter distance, regardless of the size, despite the fact Mongols did have a significant edge in combat both technologically and in other ways over the Japanese. It's really hard to mount that sort of invasion against serious opposition (and the preparations the Japanese made between the first and second invasion meant it was significantly harder for the Mongols to successfully gain landfall despite their aforementioned advantages).

 

[earlofbrigand]

Can anyone explain where this fits into the dev diary details ?

Atlantic Navigation - For those who want to immerse themselves as adventurers traveling to the New World