1. The spies get significantly more then your entire years income; it goes somewhere. In game the spy does what the conquistador did. What the spy conquers defects (i.e. what Cortez took went to the king of Spain without any royal involvement). Again like a spy. You are reading too much into the name; a small number of people acting with permission but not orders of the crown recruited local allies who were desperate to overthrow extremely brutal Aztec rule; and defeated the Aztecs and made the crowns first knowledge of them knowledge that they ruled Mexico. That seems a lot more in EU terms like a spy; especially because you as the nation don't control them.
If you look at that abstractly then yes. But then we could also call most diplomatic actions, rebels, and pirates as "spies", simply because they weren't completely controlled by a state. As I said, you're presenting a definition that is completely inconsistent with how the game works. Not only that, but you clearly have a very limited view of why the Aztec Empire fell. The Aztecs didn't fall because they were brutal. They fell because that was incredibly common political action in Mesoamerica. General politics dictated that 3 states form an alliance, shake off the previously dominant overlords, and then begin their own expansion. The Aztec triple alliance was not exceptionally brutal, only exceptionally successful, meaning that their fame and enemies grew. This is both how the Spanish came to hear of them and also why they were able to set up the alliances that they did.
2. I wouldn't say that; if you add what Cortez brought into Mexico with what the governor of Cuba sent to arrest him your already 1/5th there without them even knowing what they were confronting and so not preparing to face a massive army.
Yes. Cortes, when completely reinforced to the best of the Spanish colonies' ability given the situation, had a fifth of what you're suggesting. That's 20%. Imagine if France only had 20% of its historical population. Or England's fleet had only grown to a fifth of its historical size. That is a big difference.
3. A very long process; it would have been impossible for Alphonso IV to even dream he would own all the Iberian Peninsula besides Portugal; that would have been as absurd for Alphonso IV as conquering North Africa would have been for Ferdinand and Isabella, and you should try offering counter ideas for why exactly giving North Africa the power it had at the game start is a bad idea. You want colonization which was done by companies and noblemen and only very rarely by states to be difficult although for the nation as a whole it was easy while wanting North Africa to start out significantly less powerful then it was historically. I don't know any historian who thinks 400 extra soldiers and 3 more ships would have made the slightest difference in the Spanish wars for the sea next to them.
First off, how does it make sense that one thing can be "impossible", yet happened, and then something else can be absurd and therefore has no chance of happening. That's very inconsistent and contradictory. Second, you're presenting a strawman argument. No where did I say anything about the strength of North Africa.
4. It isn't that some happened haphazardly; it is that the state sending out and funding colonial expeditions was rare and overwhelmingly it was done by companies; and those companies at first had such legal ambiguity that the Portugese didn't think they were at war with the Dutch East India Company when at war with Holland; and the Dutch East India Company taking a Portugese Carrack was extremely controversial.
And yet, once more, I have to point out that this is all handled by the state in EU3. The VOC isn't an actual state in EU3. It's considered part of the Netherlands. You even get a decision allowing you, the overseer of the state, to found that company. So to repeat once more, your argument is terribly flawed because you're trying to separate things from the "state" even though they are one and the same in EU.
5. I never said I wanted it to be easy; and I am open to suggestions on other things; and furthermore think I will just ignore the Aztecs as usual; lonely gameplay isn't appealing to me and I don't think Paradox will be putting any extra effort into them.
From what we've seen it looks as if the New World nations might get slight increases in content, primary in terms of disease and First Contact. We don't know yet whether the number of nations or provinces will be increased to better represent the area.
6. The First Crusade, Second Third and well all Crusaders didn't actually call themselves Crusaders. The wars with the Barbary Pirates and Ottomans and Spain were Crusades; as much as the Albigensian Crusades and Northern Crusades. They aren't on the radar for standard history course because the focus of those are the historical "winners". The last Crusade to save the Byzantines ended the day before EU IV starts actually.
So, to recap again: The Papal States called this a crusade, even if it didn't really play out anything like a crusade and now modern historians don't really consider it a crusade?
7. Portugal based it's wealth on trade not gold Buillion; and look how well it did on the last Portugese Crusade to North Africa; the entire nobility dead, the king dead without an heir, a succession crisis giving the Spanish Crown the Portugese crown, extreme debt, they purchased the legend of a once and future king at the expense of well the entire expeditions lives and for a time their independence. The right way to represent North Africa is through making it as strong as it was historically when the game starts; not by making Spain have a choice of who they want to conquer; and I really don't understand why you would want the Spanish player to have only as hard a time conquering North Africa as he would Mexico in a normal game; it makes no sense.
So, to point this back at your overall argument, the wealth of the New World doesn't actually have much to do with the success of the Iberians? The thesis you made earlier was that the New World was a valuable treasure trove that gave the Iberians the wealth to control larger empires? Perhaps your positions have changed a bit. Additionally, you seem to be comparing these two areas of focus as if they were identical in how they logistically functioned. Clearly it would be next to impossible to send a king into the New World. That renders one of your points completely irrelevant. Additionally, you're presenting it as if all ventures in North Africa failed. In reality it was essentially a game the Ottomans raiding to promote their dominance and the Spanish trying to hold their ground through small exclaves. They did have some successes in those endeavors.
8. Actually historically the Spanish didn't have much problems governing what they conquered they had trouble conquering it; their first colonial revolutions were 19th century which is after EU IVs timeframe; that alone should tell you how hard administering the territory was to them. Spanish rule in Naples ends when the French put in a Frenchman, could you actually name a successful Aztec or well native revolt? The modern population of Mexico has mixed Spanish Native descent and is Catholic; Spanish Colonial Rule was unjust but successful. Of course if you consider British and French Privateers to be an administrative problem (in the case of French Privateers one dealt with when Spain nipped the French Colonization of Florida in the bud) then I would like to know your definition of an enemy actively attacking your empire.
Well, you could look at the Maya, who openly resisted Spanish claims to sovereignty over them, resulting in a long series of conflicts that the Spanish were reluctant to engage in, despite the problem existing the heart of their colonial empire. Or you could look at some of the issues in Peru, where the Inca managed to put up organized resistance for a fair amount of time. Or you you could look at the problems the Spanish had with Natives in the southern Andes, who refused to let the Spanish into those lands and kept them out for the entirety of this time frame. Or you could look farther north to Apacheria and Comancheria, two fully independent Native states within the Spanish Empire's borders, that not only forced the Spanish to recognize their de facto independence, but also openly sacked Spanish towns and ruined many of Spain's northern settlements. You could also look at the Puebla revolt which greatly limited Spanish control in that area and even won the Natives some basic concessions. Or you could look at the British incited revolts in Mexico in the 17th century which resulted in some tribes achieving independence for a while after killing many Jesuits and Spanish settlers. Additionally, there were issues with governors acting liberally and independently, especially during times of war. There are also the many Spanish colonies in the Northeast that failed because the Spanish couldn't maintain enough presence and defense to keep them safe and productive.
9. I don't want a cheat; I was open to a counter suggestion but someone else beat you to it. In general I find somethings you say interesting and like following up on your assertions the name stupid genius is because I know my view of myself is higher then it should be but you seem to treat these debates as fights (I do to when insulted and sometimes say things I regret that is meant as criticism not insult); I frankly didn't know if you considered the event too hard on the Aztec placer/ai or too easy until you said "then just cheat". You also seemed hostile to the idea that Cossack, Polish, Hungarian, Russian and Tatar and other cavalry was as good as "Western" (whatever that means they used the same types of and same cavalry tactics) Cavalry. In your opinion were the Meso and South Americans the only non-western civilization that had a chance to fight back?
At what point did I say anything about cavalry? Better yet, I've already explained why the idea of event that decides a much larger process is unacceptable. The fall of the Ming dynasty or the formation of Russia could just as well be events that automatically recreate something, but we as players of a game don't want things to just happen around us with no real input into what happens. That's not a game. When we have something that involves both choice and effort, then we should have gameplay to back that up. Not auto-annexing. As I said, that might as well be cheating.
10. Your history is also flawed. Had you asked somebody during the Armada what the most powerful Christian Nation was you would have been told Spain; in the short term New World Empire really did power up Spain. This whole thread is a suggestion that North Africa should be as powerful as it was historically when the game starts; and the player or ai is free to prosper as happened historically or collapse as happens right now. The idea that the only thing protecting powers that dominated the sea should be an over extension feature is ludicrous. Had the Spanish expeditions to North Africa won Spain would have conquered it; and wouldn't have had trouble maintaining control of the coast it was interested in. A hard conquest would be a place like Moldavia, or Albania, or even Wallachia; all of which put up much stronger resistance against much greater odds then any native American Empire.
First, please see my previous comment where I listed about half a dozen separate challenges to Spanish rule by the Natives. Second, I've not said much about the strength of North Africa. You pretend that I have, but I haven't. I've only said that conquering North Africa should be a challenge that requires a good deal of the player's resources and attention. You may not want to have North Africa conquered at all, because it conflicts with your opinion on the matter, but ultimately this will possible because the devs will not turn it into an impenetrable fortress. So perhaps it would be better to stay in the mindset of the game when discussing it.
11. I apologize if anything I said sounded condescending; but I noticed things were devolving and wanted to nip any ill will in the bud I hope your not annoyed at me; but there is no way the Virginia Company could be considered an equal challenge for England to subduing Ireland (to use English history as a comparison). You are showing that for colonists and conquistadores things were tough; I appreciate that but for the Spanish Crown and you admitted homeland so nation as a whole this was easy. The things that Spain devoted most of it's resources to were either stalemates, failures, and in some cases victories but all cost them much dearer then any conquest of natives in any colony. I'm not arguing that because Spanish are "western" (a meaningless title for the 15th century) that they are naturally superior so should get an auto-win like in todays EU3 like Joe did so no need to get annoyed.
My point of contention is primarily with two things: First, the idea that things like conquistadors, merchants, diplomatic actions, spies, and so on are not part of the "state". You keep going back to the point that these weren't state sanctioned events, but as I pointed out, the scope of the state in EU is much larger than you're presenting it. As such, I disagree with some of your points about how things like the conquest of the New World should be handled. Second, I contest your opinion on how much room for opportunity a state should have. For me, colonizing the New World should take a mixture of focus and investment. Similarly, I think that conquering North Africa should take focus and investment. I don't think that a player should be totally limited in their choices, but makes the game significantly more interesting if you actually have to weigh your options. If you want to play a land focused England bent on subduing France, then you should be able to, but it should slow down if not halt your ability to also establish a continent spanning colonial empire. And once more, this isn't a matter of difficulty in the game as much as it is a matter of giving the player meaningful gameplay choices in how they want their nation to evolve.
And to add, I am not angry or frustrated with you. You've yet to delve into name calling or general insults and as such I consider this a fairly civil conversation. Differences in opinion on subjective matters like gameplay or the difficulty of something will obvious bring up room for debate, but need not be treated as life or death arguments.