Events that did happen that rarely or never happen in game

[Viperswhip]

Can get rid of it altogether by moving your capital there, which happens to be right around the time you get enough missionary strength to start converting Africa, so it works out.

 

[alexti]

One of the biggest historical versus in-game anomalies for me is that Europeans under AI control are a lot slower than historically to establish a presence around the Indian Ocean in the 15th/16th century. Even as a player, it's challenging to keep pace with what actually happened: historically, by the 1520s the Iberians were basically all over the world, with Spain and Portugal competing for control of the Moluccas having reached them from opposite sides of the planet. The lack of European presence in this part of the world was bad enough pre-1.18, but now with Institutions it has massive knock-on effects for tech progress as well.

I don't want to see more events like the one handing Goa to the Portuguese though. It's such a crutch, and it looks positively ridiculous when the Portuguese haven't even rounded the Cape yet, as a way of simply teleporting them into India by fiat.

Instead, I think we need to revisit concepts like 'trade range' and 'fleet basing rights'. Trade fleets had been going around the Indian Ocean for a long time before the EU4 era, and the country of origin of the trade fleet didn't need to have formal arrangements with the countries on the coast: the fleet would just sell some of its goods in the nearest neutral port in return for supplies. Given that we're talking about voyages along densely-populated coastlines with many established ports, supplies would only have been an issue if all the coastal states were actually hostile or embargoed the traders. The Portuguese took a new approach of directly capturing/making bases everywhere, so they could monopolise control of the trade, but they didn't need to conquer large amounts of land simply to reach the other side of the ocean.

Maybe it would be more fitting to be able to establish 'outposts' in foreign land, that do not constitute ownership of a province, but give fleet access and trade/coring range, and cannot simply be removed by the province owner (short of going to war or using Threaten War). It could be something the province owner allows to be established, or something that can be forced on the province owner by war (including with the 'trade war' CB, which allows concessions to be forced by means of a blockade instead of having to launch a full-scale land invasion). Enforced fleet basing doesn't really do the job, as it is too inefficient in terms of diplo slots and money, and too liable to be revoked as soon as the truce is up.

This seems like a good and an original idea that deserves its own thread in suggestion forum. Those 'outposts' are something current 'trade company provinces' are trying to be, but separating outpost/trade post/trade company mechanics from the province ownership makes more sense.

 

[Trin Tragula]

I don't want to see more events like the one handing Goa to the Portuguese though. It's such a crutch, and it looks positively ridiculous when the Portuguese haven't even rounded the Cape yet, as a way of simply teleporting them into India by fiat.

Much as I dislike this event it does require Goa to be within range of Portugal before it can trigger.

 

[GeneralJhon]

Much as I dislike this event it does require Goa to be within range of Portugal before it can trigger.

Perhaps there could be another requirement such as owning a province in the Arabian Peninsula. It could give a little realism...

 

[iquabakaner]

Perhaps there could be another requirement such as owning a province in the Arabian Peninsula. It could give a little realism...

Wouldn't that make it impossible for the AI to trigger it? I've never seen AI Portugal get anything in Arabia.

 

[LS22]

If you want to implement what historically happened, then prohibit Castile/Aragon/Spain, to colonize/conquer anything between Brazil and Phillipines. Castile was forbidden to take any posession in Africa (south of the Canary Islands), Arabia, India, Indonesia, China, and Australia. That's the historical Treaty of Tordesillas, that complemented the already signed Treaty of Alcaçovas.
Also, if Castile/Spain has gold provinces on the new world, it should get a disaster that puts it's inflation over the top to cripple them to the knees.

Railroading is non-sensical in a sandbox game, imo.

 

[Incompetent]

If you want to implement what historically happened, then prohibit Castile/Aragon/Spain, to colonize/conquer anything between Brazil and Phillipines. Castile was forbidden to take any posession in Africa (south of the Canary Islands), Arabia, India, Indonesia, China, and Australia. That's the historical Treaty of Tordesillas, that complemented the already signed Treaty of Alcaçovas.

A dynamically generated Treaty of Tordesillas is already in the game for the New World, and it's a fine idea in principle. In practice though it has been quite a mess, and tends to just make all the AI Catholic colonisers hate each other and lose all their Papal Influence. Extending it to Trade Company regions in the Old World would make some sense, as long as all the problems are ironed out first.

 

[PhroX]

Perhaps there could be another requirement such as owning a province in the Arabian Peninsula. It could give a little realism...

The requirement for Portugal to get Goa should be....Portugal conquering Goa.

 

[macd21]

The AI should be making its alliances based on the state of the game, arbitrarily deciding some countries can't ally others is just going to expose the AI.

But as Mortheim said, the animosity between Russia and the Ottomans is something that was caused by real world issues that happen in the game (Constantinople, competing interests) that are not given sufficient weight in the game.

An event firing for Orthodox countries on the fall of Constantinople, giving them -50 relations with the conqueror, would suffice I think.

 

[grommile]

The requirement for Portugal to get Goa should be....Portugal conquering Goa.

This.

Historically, the way they obtained Goa was by conquering it from a relatively weak state (the Sultanate of Bijapur) that had taken control in the wake of the power vacuum caused by the successive misfortunes of the Vijayanagara Empire and the Bahmani Sultanate. (And of course, they relied on a local ally to help them win the battles.)

An event firing for Orthodox countries on the fall of Constantinople, giving them -50 relations with the conqueror, would suffice I think.

There is already an event, post fall-of-Constantinople, via which the Ottomans can poison (or boost!) their relations with the entire Orthodox world. It relates to how they deal with the Ecumenical Patriarchate.

 

[macd21]

There is already an event, post fall-of-Constantinople, via which the Ottomans can poison (or boost!) their relations with the entire Orthodox world. It relates to how they deal with the Ecumenical Patriarchate.

Which clearly isn't enough to stop the Russians and Ottos from allying.

 

[Aries666]

Which clearly isn't enough to stop the Russians and Ottos from allying.

So should this be a permanent relations penalty? What happens if Pol-Lith are growing out of control should these two countries with mutual defense interests still be barred from allying one another just for the sake of preserving a history that is no longer valid?

 

[LS22]

So should this be a permanent relations penalty? What happens if Pol-Lith are growing out of control should these two countries with mutual defense interests still be barred from allying one another just for the sake of preserving a history that is no longer valid?

For that scenario, the "railroading" lobby, will argue that the PLC shouldn't be allowed to grow more than it's historical borders.

 

[macd21]

So should this be a permanent relations penalty? What happens if Pol-Lith are growing out of control should these two countries with mutual defense interests still be barred from allying one another just for the sake of preserving a history that is no longer valid?

Yes, it should be a permanent relations penalty. If the PLC comes to threaten them both, then they can mutually join a coalition against them, or they can both rival the PLC and get a bonus to relations that might overcome the other malus enough for them to ally. But currently the real-world factors that generated enmity between them are not really part of the game.

The point is that currently they ally far more than they should and that's because the game can't include all the variables that existed in the real world. And that's what these kinds of events should ideally be for, IMO - representing historical factors that the game's abstractions can't handle.

 

[grommile]

they can mutually join a coalition against them,

Nope. AI Poland is unlikely to ever get both of them past -50 AE simultaneously, since the Ottomans don't care much about Poland conquering Christians and Moscow doesn't care much about Poland conquering Muslims.

or they can both rival the PLC and get a bonus to relations that might overcome the other malus enough for them to ally.

The PLC is their most likely shared rival... and each country's most likely rival after about 1500 full stop.

 

[zukodark]

The formation of Prussia never happens the same way as in history. Yet it still appears even by the hands of AI, which is fun. After all, they are iconic. It is far easier for a lot of people to relate to Prussia's dominance than something like Pomerania. I'd say you could say the same about India. People don't care much about India when it always is a crowd of nations they have never heard of. The Mughals however...

It doesn't matter if it is the same nation as it was historically. Just being called the Mughals, being a power, and having Mughal ideas would be by far enough, and there's plenty of ways to ensure it could happen. It would worth looking at India if there was a high chance of forming a major nation with flavor there, and where a broken India would be worth mentioning.

 

[grommile]

Except that forming the Mughal Empire as a native Indian state makes no sense at all.

 

[Aries666]

Yes, it should be a permanent relations penalty. If the PLC comes to threaten them both, then they can mutually join a coalition against them, or they can both rival the PLC and get a bonus to relations that might overcome the other malus enough for them to ally. But currently the real-world factors that generated enmity between them are not really part of the game.

The point is that currently they ally far more than they should and that's because the game can't include all the variables that existed in the real world. And that's what these kinds of events should ideally be for, IMO - representing historical factors that the game's abstractions can't handle.

You realise that the thing that already causes an Ottoman, Russia alliance is mutual rivals right?

 

[LS22]

If you say that 2 nations shouldn't be allowed to ally with each other, because historically it never happened, them this game would be filled to the roof with modifiers, and would be utterly unplayable because you wouldn't be able to do anything that would deviate from history.

 

[Shadoon4]

If you say that 2 nations shouldn't be allowed to ally with each other, because historically it never happened, them this game would be filled to the roof with modifiers, and would be utterly unplayable because you wouldn't be able to do anything that would deviate from history.

However its important to note historical rival modifier exists between several European countries (namely Austria-France), that makes it impossible to secure an Alliance...AND CANNOT EVER BE REMOVED!