I have to add my opinion here. I apologise for the essay.
I really don't think the whole world should be playable.
I know that in the BG all of North and South America was colonisable. But I'm pretty sure that the Rockies were not casually travelled, let alone settled (even with TPs) during the period in question. Same goes for the Amazon. I don't think that they really should be in the CG.
Consider the difficulties of the first caravans along those difficult passages to California in the 1830's. Many didn't even make it, with half a century's technology more than that theoretically available in EU.
Travellers with late-20th century equipment still find the better part of Brazil inaccessible.
I suppose it is possible that these areas could have been traversed by Europeans in the 1700's. But colonised? Forget it.
The African interior is another good call for elimination. Until the advent of quinine in the 19th century, no European dared leave the shores to investigate the interior, for fear of dropping off due to malaria. Those foolish enough to try tended to ignore the warnings of the indigenous peoples and stumble into swamps en route to... wherever.
Himalayas? Gobi desert areas? Tibet / Western China? See Rockies. Increase difficulty of settlement by 100%.
Australian outback? I live in Sydney. Trust me, there is hardly anyone settled there even now.
Arabian peninsula? Even in the 19th century, the Europeans didn't investigate. Even today, the existing political boundaries between Oman, Saudi Arabia, UAE and Yemen are not perfectly defined, though they appear on most maps as though they were.
Alaska? Nice try. The Russians were there, that's true. But the game map goes far enough by allowing colonisation of the coastal areas north of what is today British Columbia. Virtually no chance of any European culture penetrating into the interior. It is a miracle that even the Russian will and constitution pushed the boundaries of the Empire as far east as it did.
No, there really isn't any way in which Europeans could have penetrated these areas in the timeframe we are dealing with.
Even if the cultures that lived in those areas would have been able to extend to meet the Europeans in their shore-based strongholds, one has to wonder: why include them? They can't be played effectively (since the EU engine does not allow for tech increases outside Europe), and there is no historically-based argument for the Europeans being able to reach them in their lands.
What are people after? French trading posts in Mali? The British sphere of influence in Tibet? Try EU 2: 1792 - 1914 (we all wish! Though I guess, you'd have to rename it to allow for the USA and Japan...).
History, or historicity. Something like what might have been.
EU limits players rather loosely, I think. But let's not get out of hand, here. I actually _don't_ want to see, say, a French colonial city in Colorado in 1650. That's the kind of thing that makes you say, 'Cool!' the first time.
But it's laughable every time after that.
Nelson
------------------
Ey. Surly only looks out for one guy -- Surly.
What would be written on them?
