Because modelling Qing is very hard, and paradox can't code Chinese AI to be aggressive enough to reunify the continent at all costs, even if high devastation will wreck mandate
Modeling anything is hard. For the quoted argument to work, you must demonstrate why NA is special compared to other regions of the world, which has not happened.
Why are you so averse to native nations dying?
I'm not averse to anybody dying in EU 4. I'm averse to claims that particular nations should die "reliably" and not others because "reasons" (aka arbitrary reasoning, at least as presented so far).
Historical games should have mechanics grounded in reality as these mechanics will then represent what happened in reality.
At the level of abstraction chosen for EU 4, this is impossible. You can't have historical outcomes with blatantly ahistorical core mechanics, and you can't abstract a game of this scope without making ahistorical core mechanics. You can give a nod to history with the mechanics, but it's not possible to actually make a model resembling history without making the game more granular across the board.
That's fine and all, but it's no longer the scope of "NA natives". It's the scope of "I want EU 5 to have more granular mechanics to model history". And it still won't be possible, yet. Computers aren't that good.
Reliable mughals perhaps not, but some great conquest of India would be nice.
Perhaps some great conquest of Europe would be nice, and I've yet to see a reason why one region should be favored for "reliable" conquest over the others. Especially when someone is advocating in favor of conquest that didn't happen in the period over conquest that did.
If we could get Timurids reliably break up and Uzbek reliably invade khorsan I'd defiently like that. Reliable rambunctioness France with only a couple of allies, who are majors, pushing into the HRE would be nice, letting the player join coalitions, and keep an Austrian player busy.
For example, quoted demonstrates the inconsistency clearly. Mass conquest of most of Europe and mass conquest of Iran are both things that happened in this period. Both were of monumental importance to history with wide-ranging consequences reaching decades to centuries past when they occurred, in ways nobody can predict.
But I don't see advocation of "reliable" dismantling of the HRE, for some reason. Despite that in our only empirical sample (actual history), this happened just as frequently as (a fraction) of Indians being conquered in NA or India being conquered by Mughals.
As said above, the conquest of the americas is so monumental to the change of the world order, we need it to happen to get a reliable game
As said above, that doesn't distinguish conquest of NA from any other region in the history of this period.
These comparisons are a bit off. Even if the Manchurians hadn't invaded China, the timeline would largely be the same.
Pffffft hahahahaha.
In case you were serious, you don't know what the timeline looks like without this massive event happening any better than the best historians alive know what it would look like (and they have no idea). Too many snowballing factors.
Assuming one desires at least some degree of accuracy, it's importaint to note that not all events are equal in significance.
It's easy to argue what was or wasn't significant in hindsight. It's also irrelevant, since we want the events in the game to match their causal factors.
France being protestant is historically inaccurate, but the natives not being conquered is very, very historically inaccurate.
That's quite the claim to make without any evidence to back it. Even bigger claim in the context of EU 4's model.
As for the natives situation, I think the devs should crank both the agressiveness of CNs and their overlords. That would result in much of the continent being more or less fully taken, by 1700
Aggressiveness would be good, because that's a better course of action for the AI's position.
That said, I'd like to point out the hypocrisy of quoted, considering that "NA more or less fully taken by 1700" is complete fantasy land. Quoted embodies the "I want the game to be historical but I also arbitrarily don't want the game to be historical" to a comical degree.
To illustrate just how ridiculous this "historical" outcome would be, I'll point out that
the US had wars vs Indians after the US Civil war. In aggregate, these wars vs Indians...most after the game's end date...resulted in casualties in the 10,000s for both sides. Tiny compared to US civil war or the world wars, but even some of the individual conflicts approached the casualties/damage of war of 1812, Mexican/American war, Spanish/American war, or Philippine/American war.
But sure. Let's "historically" represent the region by having nations mostly off the map despite that in actual history some were still engaging in armed conflict 200 years later, and call this a "historical outcome"
. Do go on and show us how Spain/Portugal fought historical wars of conquest well into the interior of what is now part of the US before 1700.
This is one of the reasons why I request that whatever standards we apply for "shouldness" to EU 4, we apply them consistently. Suggestions for NA Indians compared to other regions of EU 4 tend to completely ignore their own standards while arbitrarily making gameplay worse.
The fact of the matter is that 1.31 is actually closer to history in the 1444-1821 period than 1.30 was in terms of outcome/% of land controlled by Europeans vs Indians, yet here we are.
