1. You guys just whines about what you cannot do as Paradox patched to make more realistic game. You guys always want to put what you want to the game, not consider real problem of developing. There are some exceptions in history, but the dev team has no reason to put all of them in the game.
Are you a comedian?
Take a look at my posts in this forum and check if I argue against realism. From the looks, you seem to think everything in EUIV is realistic and Paradox is favouring realism over gameplay. Man, go take a look at some good history books and stop acting like you can't read some facts, your argument of "muh realism" is pathetic and flawed to the core.
As for developing: Yes, they do need to represent exceptions in history. If you cared to research, you'd notice that history is made up of funny little exceptions and unlikely events that helped shape it. Who would have guessed that one of the largest anomalies in history, the French revolution, would have such large impact, right? Oh, wait, it's not something that happened every odd year, let's not have it in the game!
2. I didn't know that two countries can represent majority of history. You have perfectly new type of eye for history. As long as you guys just say 'Hey Paradox, there is ~~~~ thing in history, so put it in your game!', your opinion will be just ignored.
Stop embarassing yourself like this, I'm starting to feel shame reading your posts. I did not say they were the majority - quite the opposite, I mentioned they were exceptions.
3. Burgundian succession and Iberian wedding are DHEs. They make game go historical, not represent majority or minority. You said DHE? Then, conversion of entire country is matter of history and not be the part of game system, but DHE. Paradox will make it in 100 years, so wait until they do, if you can alive that long. Or you can mod it.
And what was the argument you used in your previous post? The one that only the majority should be represented in the game, right? Yet DHEs are there exactly because they are needed to represent some specific and unlikely events, although in some (Burgundian Inheritance comes to mind) it is just railroading for the sake of railroading, which is contrary to the realism you use as an argument, much like the Monarch Point mechanic or other - sometimes unecessary - abstractions.
4. Conquer provinces and make vassal which follows your own religion is not major situation in history. You convert all of provinces? Then, they are just your people, not other's. Also, why you should make vassal? You can just rule them directly. However, current system doesn't offer you convert ALL of people in provinces. What a pity.
?
Decentralization exists in history, you know. And even when pursuing centralization, did you really think Austria, or "Spain", were single entities? Until Spain was properly established with the unification of the Kingdoms of Castile and Aragon, or Austria became an Empire, those lands were a boatload of titles united by a monarch. In game terms, they would be personal unions.
Decentralization could be useful historically because there was a lot of difficulty in maintaining a large state, yet such an important problem that
all major powers faced is not represented in the game at all, so much for representing the "majority". And until stated otherwise, the system of religion in-game does simulate the majority of the population or at least the elite. Are you claiming that the minority should always rule? What was your talk about "majorities" in historic events again?
5. You simply said 'Paradox should work for us and not be granted any earning!'. They have their own life and family, so they should lock some of features to make earning.
Derp argument. I'm a computer science student myself, so to claim that would be the same as to claim that
I should not have any earning ever when I do start to work. I don't think I have ever claimed that, but destroying features that existed in the past to put them behind a new paywall simply because they, according to your claim, want the money is pretty anti-ethical in my opinion.
'There are some exceptions that EU can't simulate! Fix it!'..? Make your own game, it is the only solution.
What a cute use of a fallacy.
I'm not even going to lose time with you anymore. I can't be troubled to convince some guy to let down his ego so that he can realize that he needs to research about something before he comes around acting like an expert in the matter and that he won't be always right. Still, I had a good laugh on the matter with the kind of arguments you used (Realism and development time, really?) to criticize my suggestion.
