I -without the knowledge of why- felt compelled to back Wiz up in that argument. For me, the very implementation of the Development system is here because when achieving ahistorical things in this game, like a westernized, technologically advanced, Eurasian Persian Empire but not being able to make your lands developed as a beaten down, financially broken France was actually not logical and also somewhat ahistorical (If you are a superpower, you develop your lands, that's that). In this context, the idea of having Kongo owning entire Africa or France conquering the Siberia or, I don't know, doing any other thing which is the reason you play the game (changing history) never questioned by players if done by the players but somehow if an ahistorical Baluchi empire which develops their land or a Wallachia who is never bugged by Hungary or the Ottomans, or a Gelre OPM, who is apparently keeping powerful and smart diplomatic relationships so that they are not eaten by their more powerful neighbor (with the consideration that they never become "free city" or "elector" status protection) which enables them to focus more on development, developing their lands bugs the players if done by the AI. This somewhat seems as hypocrisy considering you want to play the game but the game you want to play is not this. The question should be asked here is that do you want a game which you play as England but can not invade mainland because it is ahistorical or play as Inca and lose every war against the Conquistadors because this is very historical? I hope not because you would not need any computer game to do it when thousands of history books exist to explain those things in detail. But if you want a game in which the Ryukyu nation can conquer the world, you should not try to disable the things which enable this type of events to happen or bugged with the fact that the AI (which you outsmart and outwit in every way as a Human being) possesses the options and possibilities same with player do in a game.
