Well, as the drum
@TheMeInTeam never tires of banging says, if we take this view then the point of divergence for EUIV’s alternative history is 11 November 1444 and from there on all bets are off; your immortal rational kingship is far and away the most ahistorical thing in the game, and so wildly ahistorical that it makes a mockery of efforts to bring “historical accuracy” into EUIV.
Personally I think that viewpoint and argument is facile, but that reflects a difference of philosophy about what EUIV is and should be; I think pressures on the player should be similarly bound into history. By contrast you’re
invoking it.
Given that you clearly have time for the viewpoint that EUIV doesn’t owe any historical accuracy because it goes out the window as a result of human agency in the game, you seem to be suggesting that the AI should be designed to consciously play badly—that historical accuracy should be included in the game insofar as it makes the game easier for the player.
Why? What is the benefit of that?