I think you missed the point I’m not asking for a historical simulation but game design that makes historical outcomes more not less possible. The more ahistorical outcomes the less immersive the game is for roleplayers.
And my point is that you might as well be asking for historical outcomes in ultimate chicken horse or street fighter, because EU 4's core mechanics make "historical" outcomes impossible. I extend this argument to earlier allegedly "historical" games of EU too, because while they shoehorned in events their models did not match them causally.
This game's design is closer to real-time Civ than most people would like to admit. It's one thing not to like that, but it's another to argue the game should be arbitrarily worse with one particular mechanic in the name of "historical immersion" that isn't even consistent for the poster making said argument.
The ironic thing is that all of this aside, 1.31 colonization is more accurate than 1.30 colonization in America. US fought many wars against Indians after the game's time period ended, and kept fighting some of those conflicts after its civil war. Despite what people drew on a map, nobody had actually sent enough settlers in numbers or won the wars yet. Even colonizers allying natives is more historical than eliminating them pre-1700. Look up a list of 1700's wars between Europeans and note some of the belligerents on either side. Might see something interesting.
Or to put a different way imagine playing HOI and having Germany defeat Russia every time if you weren’t directly intervening.
This actually happened for a long time, though HOI 4 can't manage to avoid lying to you or to present functional basic inputs/controls. Hard to have an immersive experience when your units literally attack away from your front line against orders.
HOI 4 is a bad comp for design reasons too though. US production and resources are massively nerfed, and the axis is super-buffed relative to actual history. If one derives "immersion" from historical accuracy, the described boring outcome (one outcome every time) would indeed be the norm, and in many iterations Germany would lose before taking France, because France is also massively nerfed in HOI relative to actual history. HOI is literally a case where reality is intentionally cast aside, even with regards to starting date setup, to make the game more fun to play.
Or if you’re playing any Indian country when the Europeans never really come and are a pushover because the game is poorly balanced now it ruins the immersion.
Another ironic example. I've seen posters prefer the old example where Indians were way behind in tech and claim that such a setup was more "historical". That despite the fact that
Mysore won pitched battles against Great Britain after 1750, which was impossible back in the days of "protectorates". It's not coherent to make historical outcomes (battle results) impossible and then claim other outcomes (final borders) are "historical" as a result of event sequences that never happened.
The claim "poorly balanced" is therefore questionable. It is more balanced now than previously. Part of the disconnect is that historically, after losing or stalling out wars several times Great Britain "outplayed" Indian nations. You can't manifest that in a historically accurate way by arbitrarily changing actual nation/military strength. But there's only one type of AI in EU 4. Notably player conquest of India or new world is easier/faster than was accomplished historically, so there is a valid case that the balance is already unduly in favor of Europeans.
To me that doesn't feel like colonisation. I like the element of luck and integration that colonisation does by waiting for the 1,000 people to arrive and getting random trade goods rather than waiting for some natives to permanently making a trade good stay.
I can buy that some people might prefer loot-box nature of drop colony and wait for RNG, but let's not mistake that for a historical representation
.
Colonizers actually having to fight natives for the land? Seems historical to me!
Particular irony being that despite European claims to the US regions, actual colony presence relative to Indians was tiny for most of this period. If Pdox wanted to be "historically accurate" while somehow using outcomes as the framework, USA would virtually never be even 50% colonized in this period. In real history, Indian federations fought alongside Europeans during times where "historical accuracy" players want them long dead in the name of history X_X.
