But of course, we are delusionnal and everything is balanced.
If you want respect, you should show some.
Resorting to ad hominem will not strengthen your arguments.
That's called nuance.
It was not war-only or peace only but you seem to think there is only one possible approach to this to suit your black&white understanding.
When I say "internal consistency", I mean in regards to your own standards for what "should happen". For a preference set to be coherent, it must be self-consistent.
Not historical outcomes, historically plausible outcomes given what the time period was. I don't care wether England, France or Naples dominate North America. The point is European powers should do it when on their own, except for player intervention.
Quoted is not self-consistent. If you use "historically plausible outcomes" as the standard you must by necessity be advocating a complete alteration to the core gameplay of EU 4. In a world where the impact of disease in the western hemisphere (and Africa) is a joke, truces always last at least 5 years, and there is such a thing as "100% war score", there must be a *special* reason native strength is particularly egregious.
Strong natives absent a disease model are not less "plausible" than the game's coalition rules by any consistent standard. If you want a different game that's fine, but if that's the case it's easier to just say so.
If not, then please state self-consistent standards.
Well, I must have dream my present run.
First time I've seen that, but I guess 1.31 shouldn't surprise us with its nonsense. We have extremely disparate outcomes, the rare case of arguing from different priors on this forum. My previous 4 games are all consistent with my picture above, yet you have your own. What a mess.
Player intervention. Irrelevant. The point stands : without player involvement, the game should lead to historically plausible results.
Okay, nevermind if this is the way you want to "argue". You were playing as Burgundy, which influences colonizers. Player involvement, therefore your example is irrelevant
.
Though I again question: from what standard do you derive this "shouldness"? It certainly isn't any of EU 4's core gameplay.
Am I playing a different game or something? In all my games, Portugal, Castille/Spain, and England always gets a foothold in the new world somewhere.
That's what I'm wondering now too. These outcomes aren't even close to each other.
that is exactly what makes me question the current state of the game. When left alone to itself the avarage state of the world should reflect the historical state.
This is a common misconception, and I hold is as an objective misconception.
In real history, we had physics and causal relations. Events happened because of their causes. That was/is the rule of reality, to the best we understand it.
In EU 4, the rules (aka the mechanics) are different. Not just with natives, but with virtually everything. These mechanics have inspiration from history, but they are not causally bound to history. In numerous cases (who makes decisions, economy, peace, truces, monarch points, coalitions, coring, even something as trivial as base income from existing) the game deliberately deviates from historical constraints.
When you abstract to that degree, you necessarily alter causal relationships in the game. But importantly: you can not have a historical outcome that is not bound to previous events in the game, no matter what that outcome is. That is by-definition impossible, because real history did not ignore causal relationships.
The amusing thing is that people insist on natives getting shredded much more frequently than they insist that Aq Qoyunlu should conquer Iran, despite an identical historical sample size and a completely different game ruleset. Motives vary from "I want an easier time as a colonizer" to superiority fantasy to just a plain old reasoning mistake etc. I don't care what the motives are, but I do insist on self-consistency when arguing points. It is not reasonable to claim that a mechanic should be historical (outcome similar to history) and also that the mechanic should not be historical (outcome inconsistent with the large sum of the game's mechanical abstractions).
Not exactly of course, and not always everywhere, and at best mechanics not script (as in AI is forced to react historical) driven.
If you don't script, you can't get "historical" outcomes at the high level of abstraction of EU 4. It's functionally impossible.
Maybe with quantum computing/super computers and a much more detailed model we can manage something closer in the future, but with EU 4 as it stands? Singling out the natives is completely arbitrary, despite how often it happens.
