Why do people hate Netherlands so much?
- Thread starter Dominion
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
There you have it. Dutch people, both back then and today, are different enough to warrant it. It's a special culture, and for the most part that should be reflected in events, or at least give certain maluses when occupied by nations whose primary cultures are significantly different. Sure, the event takes it way too far and is every bit as forced and artificial as the Inheritance given the circumstances in which their fight for independence actually happened, but you should absolutely have more problems in the area than in most of Europe for instance, hence why this would probably work best as a difficult to avoid disaster.
You really don't lose that much from keeping a good 50k stack to defend the area for a while unless you're really small (think of all the cheesy BI strategies people and even AI Milan like to pull), and if you've got the event you should be strong enough to at least be able to keep one such stack as a reserve over there for a while. If you didn't lose the cores I would've agreed, but if you actually do, I'd rather deal with that than lose a fair bit of admin and get a huge chunk of AE because of how good the provinces are.
Last edited:
.png){kind=avatar}
I don't agree. The revolts happened due to a very specific combination of factors. Not because the Dutch had some kind of stronger national identity than everyone else.
The BI event is at least close enough to game-start that you can justify it with "well, that's what happened historically after all".
But the Dutch Revotls are a long time into the game. It's almost impossible to end up in the same state that historically happened at that point, which is the reason why I disagree with such a specific event. (Why should the Netherlands revolt under a German Federation, but France occupied by Great Britain won't rebel at all?)
I'd rather see a mechanic that creates trouble on foreign culture provinces (maybe only non-accepted culture) after the 2nd half of the 17th century - historically the rise of nation states.
I did some digging in the files and if all provinces are owned by an AI subject nation, the revolts won't happen. But if the Netherlands appear for example out of an HRE province you don't control, you will get revolts in your subject.
One should keep in mind that the Dutch revolts was one of the few "events" that existed even in Europa Universalis 1 and (afaik) in the boardgame - they are basically a staple of the franchise 
(and they were very bit as railroady back then)
Their nostalgia value aside, the reason for the continued existence of these events is, I suppose, that the Dutch revolts were not just any nationalist/separatist uprising, but the national uprising that had by far the most impact during the EU4 timespan (yes, I think this includes the USA, if we look at the impact until 1819). That said, it would be preferable for these events to be more context-based - or to be integrated in a larger system of more powerful and more interesting revolts.
(and they were very bit as railroady back then) Their nostalgia value aside, the reason for the continued existence of these events is, I suppose, that the Dutch revolts were not just any nationalist/separatist uprising, but the national uprising that had by far the most impact during the EU4 timespan (yes, I think this includes the USA, if we look at the impact until 1819). That said, it would be preferable for these events to be more context-based - or to be integrated in a larger system of more powerful and more interesting revolts.
One should keep in mind that the Dutch revolts was one of the few "events" that existed even in Europa Universalis 1 and (afaik) in the boardgame - they are basically a staple of the franchise
Their nostalgia value aside, the reason for the continued existence of these events is, I suppose, that the Dutch revolts were not just any nationalist/separatist uprising, but the national uprising that had by far the most impact during the EU4 timespan (yes, I think this includes the USA, if we look at the impact until 1819). That said, it would be preferable for these events to be more context-based - or to be integrated in a larger system of more powerful and more interesting revolts.
Fall of Ming China is arguably just as large if not more so considering the number of people influenced.
It's also pretty asinine and a nod against history in many cases. The Dutch revolted for specific reasons against a non-contiguous overlord that didn't exactly have friendly territory between them. Not only does the event break the game's core rules in several ways, it also completely ignores the historical context which led to the revolts in the first place.
Cologne holding the stuff while promoting the culture and being the exact same religion through its entire empire/ruler is *not* the same context as the Spanish overlord situation on NED! The way the game treats it is as if these things make no difference...more flagrantly ahistorical than not doing anything special for the situation at all.
Personally I think the BI should result in the Netherlands being formed as a new country under a PU. With so much development, liberty desire is likely to be high. And you can add events to push up the LD if the Netherlands converts during the Redirmation, almost guaranteeing an independence war.
Why should NED get special treatment? There already is an opinion malus in the game for "wrong religion" which translates into a bit of liberty desire.
Why not? There's plenty of countries and regions of the game that get a bit of special treatment. The NED revolt is just one of them. The problem isn't that it gets special treatment, the problem is that the special treatment is a bit messy.
Because everything that led to the Dutch declaring independence is already in the game. If you lower autonomy, don't accept the culture and are of a different religion.. you'll have something like 25-30 unrest coming towards you. Coupled with that development, you're in for quite the nasty rebel surprise.
So why force something that is already modeled with the mechanics in the game instead of just improving those?
So why force something that is already modeled with the mechanics in the game instead of just improving those?
Unjustified/self-inconsistent rationale for special treatment is an active detriment to the game.
"Why not"? It breaks core gameplay rules emphatically, ignores historical causality and game mechanics alike, and doesn't make sense. Even if you clean it up so that it's not an actively broken event sequence in its own right, you're still left with the self-inconsistency arising from selective/biased favoring of nations > history arbitrarily.
Should Taungu start with 500 development? No? Okay then. We need a baseline rationale/criteria that makes magic NED somehow okay while something like that isn't okay. Without self-consistent reasoning for special treatment it comes off as arbitrary nonsense, because it is.
Because it's easier to use events to model it than trying to tweak the entire system to get the result you want.
Er, why?
Yes, the point is that it breaks core gameplay rules emphatically, because the core gameplay rules don't result in a successful Netherland revolt. So an important country that was extremely influential during the EU4 time period just doesn't appear on the map.
The 'baseline rationale/criteria' that makes 'magic' NED ok is because the Netherlands revolt happened and was extremely important during the time frame. Taungu didn't have the equivalent of 500 development during the time frame, so it doesn't meet the criteria.
Signals necessarily arbitrary basis for mechanical implementation...but these mechanics are supposed to be the core of the gameplay and provide players meaningful choices. If their interactions are arbitrary, it undermines that.
Again, what makes NED special compared to other important countries that don't appear or perform as they did historically? It is reasonable from a historical perspective to anticipate no NED revolt whatsoever if the conditions for it didn't exist.
What you are trying to do is tell me that history shouldn't be observed (causal relations) because history happened (nation x existed). That doesn't work. It's self-inconsistent.
If you straight up ignore causal relations, you do not and can't have a historical argument. That is not a matter of debate, it's a matter of physical reality.
It’s not a causal argument, it’s a historical gaming argument. And it has nothing whatsoever to do with physical reality. EU4 is a historical strategy game, and a historical strategy game that doesn’t feature a Netherlands revolt in the 16th century is poorer for it. The answer to the question ‘why not other countries’ is simple: they already do. Plenty of other countries get events, missions, age bonuses or other helping hands to push them perform as they did historically. And while such tweaks don’t cover every country satisfactorily, we’ll hopefully see more of them with each additional DLC.
When you argue that something should happen in the game based on history, you are appealing to reality (our history). Our history happened for causal reasons.
If you're denying the applicability of physical reality to game implementation, despite that history indisputably depended on physical reality, there is zero credibility in making historical arguments...it's a necessarily irrational and self-defeating stance.
Arguing history should apply because history should not apply doesn't make sense. You're doing that.
I say it isn't poorer for it with equally valid logical basis (preference and nothing else).
I counter-claim that games that break their own rules on occasion with no clear basis for doing so are poorer for it with stronger logical basis (games depend on their rules to function, breaking them arbitrarily undermines the game outright).
If the design really wants to see NED, the mechanics should reflect it happening under appropriate conditions and it should be possible to see something similar for other populations in the same situation...if we're going to be consistent within the game's design.
In saying this and not addressing why NED gets the special treatment you're dodging the argumentative issue. I'm still waiting on what criteria establishes one "x happened in history" event for special treatment but not others, that is consistently applicable. That is a hard necessity for the historical logic you're using to be coherent, so it's important to have it.
Arguing that physical reality should be used as the basis of game implementation is ridiculous, because the game cannot possibly represent all the nuances of physical reality. The game uses abstractions, many of them, to cover a broad swath of different conditions. The basic system is not capable of covering every important historical event, but events like the NED revolt can be used to patch over the holes.
I've done nothing of the sort.
And I would argue that insisting on consistency for consistency's sake is silly. The standard mechanics can't create the desired result without massive work, but who cares? The same result can be achieved with some events.
I've already addressed why NED gets the special treatment: because it's a massively important event in European (and global) history. Same as the Burgundian Inheritance, the War of the Roses, the English civil war, the Russian Time of Troubles, the 30 years war, the rise of the Marathas, the spread of Christianity to Japan, the resurrection of Persia... The game is littered with events to represent important historical events, not just NED, and more will be added. You want a consistently applicable criteria? Sure: if it's in a history book, odds are it justifies special treatment, unless the basic core mechanics sufficiently generate that outcome.
You've conceded that yes, the game needs to make abstractions. What makes you conclude NED is more important to the model than the conditions that led to the revolt being possible, even desirable to its population? Why one abstraction threshold over another?
Let's see that criteria.
You have asserted historical events should happen without their cause, which is exactly what I said. Any argument that does this is objectively self-inconsistent.
History w/o cause =/= history. That's not a matter of debate. It's a matter of reality.
Okay, let's add an event to make Susquehannock full annex Austria by event in 1782, give or take 30 years. It's a desired result. It can be achieved. I apparently don't need any criteria or justification for it. Let's make it happen. Consistency is silly. Give Austria to Susquehannock. Austria was conquered historically (never mind by who or the circumstances, that doesn't seem to matter for NED so why should it matter now?) so it makes sense by the same rationale and standards you're using for NED, so why not?
If that sounds absurd or illogical, it's because it is. But it's the same argument NED revolt breaking game mechanics is getting.
I am insisting on self-consistency because that is mandatory for a rational, coherent argument.
Important to whom? There's no criteria that can be set to make it more important than things that routinely don't happen that I have heard. If it exists you can simply present it and doing so would be a major boost to the strength of your argument.
Not only do some of those other events you listed not break core gameplay rules (and thus aren't getting special treatment), the remaining are similarly cancerous. King of Burgundy dies is a good example. Why did the BI happen? It wasn't because the king had a legitimate heir of age to ascend the throne...and then why is it okay to force this event "because history" but turn around and give BI to someone else than who got it historically?
The logic is all over the place. It's a bad implementation.
Still arguing against yourself. What you just said here argues for Taungu to get huge after all, to force Mughals no matter what happens in Iran, for it to be completely impossible for Poland to succeed or to unite the HRE as anybody, for anybody other than France to go revolutionary...
Is this a game with abstractions or is this a game that makes things happen because it's in a history book? It seems to be whatever is convenient to what you prefer at the moment, but the rationale supporting the NED event to this point is incoherent.
The Netherlands event chain is clunky and feels completely out of the place like a crude patch or some arbitrary EU2 legacy.
That mechanic would be better incorporated into the general nationalist/patriots rebels mechanic instead of this.
Something like "localised disaster" so to speak - under certain circumstances certain non-accepted nationality gets stronger rebellions.
That mechanic would be better incorporated into the general nationalist/patriots rebels mechanic instead of this.
Something like "localised disaster" so to speak - under certain circumstances certain non-accepted nationality gets stronger rebellions.
Some good ideas here. The events should be reworked into reformation age mechanics.
At their core, the Netherlands based events have good intention. The country was borne as a theater of the reformation and went on to represent a vision of republic, helping to open the door to later game events.
Anecdotally, without the Dutch loans negotiated by John Adams, the US might not have won independence.
Anyway, yeah the Dutch represent an important role in what we experience as game mechanics!
At their core, the Netherlands based events have good intention. The country was borne as a theater of the reformation and went on to represent a vision of republic, helping to open the door to later game events.
Anecdotally, without the Dutch loans negotiated by John Adams, the US might not have won independence.
Anyway, yeah the Dutch represent an important role in what we experience as game mechanics!
Not in this game it isn't, because this game isn't reality. It's a necessarily crude simulation. It can't include anywhere close to the number of variables necessary to cover everything. There is no 'cause,' there's just a bunch of abstractions chosen by the developers.
If you're reduced to strawman arguments, you might want to reconsider your position.
No, none of these things have to happen - but tweaking the system to improve the likelihood that they happen (or don't, as the case may be) is fine. For example, the formation of the Mughals is currently far, far too rare. Hopefully there's be an Indian immersion DLC that will include a mechanic to massively increase the chance of the Mughals forming - just as there's a special mechanic to increase the likelihood of the Netherlands appearing.
It's both a game with abstractions that makes things happen because they were in a history book. In fact, it uses abstractions to make historical events appear - I'm not sure why you think they're in opposition. The historic events don't always have to appear, or go the way they did historically - just as sometimes the Netherlands revolt doesn't occur at all, or fails, or the Netherlands succeeds beyond the real-world example. You keep asking for the criteria for such special treatment, so I'll repeat it again: any historic event is sufficient justification for special treatment to increase the likelihood of it happening.