I am not berating you personally. I am putting your words into practice. If you wish to stop actively engaging in hindsight bias, "which" nation is completely and utterly irrelevant
.
I'm afraid it does, because it shows your grasping at straws. If you're so opposed to any argument you perceive as 'Hindsight Bias' that you'll be willing to completely dismiss it and argue without a shred of evidence towards why we should go your route, other than the game would be better, then I see no reason why you shouldn't just agree that Buddhists/Hindus/etc. should just get more conversion flavor instead of recycling the same old mechanics. Of course, you beg to disagree, and realize that you have to argue from some historical perspective if you want your argument to carry any weight. An argument based solely in gameplay is just as uncreditable as one based solely in realism.
And just for the record, alt-history and common sense are just as much of a hindsight bias as real history and realism. If your going to look back and say they could have done this or that because this or that happened, and then base the validity of an argument off that, your engaging in your dreaded hindsight bias just as much as I am.
Tell us why this can't have happened in theory, without resorting to "because it didn't", and I will lift the claim of hindsight bias in this case and engage in proper discussion.
Perhaps you could tell my why it could have happened in theory? But, of course, if you do, you'll be guilty of hindsight bias. Shifting the burden of proof and appealing to the stone does not make your argument any more valid.
What about the game simply letting you take anti-Christian edict, as it does right now? Seems like a hint at something a threatened religious group might just do, given an alternative scenario of, say, Russia bearing 150000 troops on China, Manchu, and Japan.
Isn't it funny how you'll cherry pick the stuff that is backed up by history or ridiculous from a realism perspective when it works for your argument?
In game DotF titles are by denomination, not groups.
No, the files assign who can claim Defender of the Faith by religious group. Everyone in the Christian group can claim DotF, same for Islam. If you don't believe me, look up the coding. Whether or not a denomination can become DotF is determined by whether or not it's parent group can, and as a result individual denominations cannot be barred or granted DotF.
Also, in counter-exampling hindsight bias, my intention was to give an example of why using "because it happened in history" is 1) inconsistently applied and 2) an ineffective argument.
Its purpose was to attack the credibility of using hindsight bias and thinking some kind of valid point was made, not to attempt to make a valid point.
First, if you're going to attack the hindsight bias, then you better make sure you never use it. And, regardless of what you say, realism *is* very much a valid argument; if EU4 was in a fantasy setting, then realism, brought to its extreme, would be void. But the setting is an integral part of the game. Remove it and you no longer have EU4. You just have Paradox Empire Building Simulator 4. No matter how silly it gets, EU4 still must maintain some loose semblance of reality to remain itself, and any major mechanics/changes the devs add in/make has to have some loose historical basis, no matter how skewered it becomes to accommodate the game.
The issue with most realism arguments is not realism itself, but that people often take them to their game-breaking extremes and only use them when they want to. Your not discrediting an argument, you're only discrediting how it's often used in a general manner not relating to this debate, and thus you failed to discredit my argument (and if anything are engaging in ergo decedo).
My points are that:
1. The lack of missionaries and -WE is a *serious* detriment to faiths that can't take DotF, and only Hindu comes even close to offsetting it. I feel Path detailed pretty nicely why it still falls short of even the weakest of Christian/Islamic in the religions elimination thread.
2. DotF is something that a threatened group could reasonably claim under alternative circumstances, including the simple notion of a ruler looking to abuse his faith for war/politicking.
The elimination threads are little more than popularity contests. However, I do agree that eastern religions could use more missionaries/strength.
And this argument is derived from what? Exactly.
#2 is something that, across many threads, the only refutation I've ever seen is "but there are no historical examples". That's it. That's why I counter-exampled that approach in a silly way, but the problem stands. DotF is a large advantage in game and it's conferred on a necessarily inconsistent basis right now, privileging nations that are already much stronger, and this gap is more apparent with the change to vassal religions.
And? You might as well complain that every nation has a disadvantage to France due to a lack of Elan if your going to abandon all pretenses of realism and argue from a purely game standpoint. And if you are going to, then you also have no reason to object to them getting non-DotF flavor in compensation.
This line showcases the inconsistent nature of the game's implementation, which is something I was going for. How is one valid and not the other? Hindsight bias is not a rational response to this scenario, but it's the only serious counter-"point" I've seen made WRT why non-Abrahamic can't take DotF.
You seem to have a very skewered way of looking at things. I said if Coptic DotF is silly, then so is Hindu, but still voiced my support for Dharmic DotF, while you called Coptic DotF more silly than Hindu when their cases were incredibly similar, both from a game and historical point (surrounded by Muslims and a few other states of their own religion, isolated, most powerful nation of their religion, and could have used any argument you make for Hindu DotF).
If you’re going to twist or take my words out of context, or just ignore the context altogether, then I’m not going to debate this with you anymore.
Maybe a militarily successful Vijay doesn't want to see other Hindus die while the sultanate mega bloc grows ever stronger. Maybe a Mahayana or Theravada king uses his faith as an excuse to "retake" the rich North India, including Bengal en route, and acts the part. Why couldn't it happen?
Maybe a militarily successful Ethiopia doesn't want to see other Copts die while the sultanate mega bloc grows ever stronger. Why couldn't it happen? Maybe most of what you’re suggesting is already simulated by the Religious CB and Guaranteeing.
If you want better DotF mechanics then just say so. If you want more missionaries for Eastern religions then just say so. I’m perfectly fine with both. But don’t use realism/alt-history/common sense as an argument and then turn around and say I can’t do the same.
But I’m tired of this debate and have no desire to continue, regardless.
