How much does « flavour » affect gameplay?

[Ispil]

Well, I was going to say what a country, nation, tag, state is. It is a huge organisation and structure determined by its geography, terrain elevations, soil fertility, ressources, climate, diplomacy, geopolitics, cultures, religions, governments, rulers, history, etc. That's where uniqueness and deepness should come from. The uniqueness and deepness that come from historically railroaded flavour are a charming illusion that hides a poor game design.

I mean specifically a tag rather than a country, from a technical standpoint.

Like, I can have tags like ENG for England, or I could just (since my understanding is that EU5 supports numerical tags) loop through a list of numbers for all the tags of the world. Does having a specific tag (such as ENG) have meaning, or could I just label them as "country 00111"? That was my point with that whole bit. To try to pull out what it actually means to be a particular tag when devoid of all other context (since, as I pointed out, all that context is removable and interchangeable; I could put ENG in Siberia and the game's gonna plug along just fine).

Like, what's actually inseparable from a tag? What isn't removable? What does being ENG versus "00346" actually mean? This is a game that has "formables", after all, which are fundamentally switching out that tag for another rather than just all those other interchangeable components. So evidently there's something specific there that isn't represented with all the other interchangeable components, and is unique and independent of everything else. What is that thing? Is there a thing at all?

 

[SAmaster]

I was more talking about how the Greek concept of eleutheria made the Poleis basically ungovernable, since it was pretty much impossible to do a Rome and make one polity expressly superior to the others. Rome could govern multiple Italian cities directly while also having numerous “allies” which were de facto subjects of Rome despite being self governing. Ignoring that the Socii are represented terribly in Imperator, reproducing this in Greece shouldn’t be possible, since eleutheria requires every Poleis be fully independent, unlike the Italian libertas which could exist and even prosper under Roman dominion. Rome kinda duped the Greeks on this by accident, but then they also couldn’t really exploit the Poleis until the Empire for that reason: if they tried the fiction of eleutheria would’ve been shattered.

Back to EU5: this sort of situations where certain populations are highly resistant to annexation should be commonplace. SoPs should be very hard to stamp out and thus require constant military presence until you can expel or assimilate them. Steppe nomads should be similar, very hard for secondary societies to govern as as such potentially not being worth the effort to conquer (Russia and the Qing are the only two states that really pulled this off, we shouldn’t assume just any state could’ve done it, but that these two has institutions which made them uniquely capable at this task of subjugating the steppe. Not that anyone should be locked out, but investment should be required). For more urban polities Mesoamerica is a good example. The tributary empire the Aztec built isn’t comparable to the unitary or quasi-federal states seen in, say, Iberia. This isn’t one tag, or even three tags, ruling directly over an empire but a network of tributary states, each their own tag, which the Aztec triple alliance subjugated. Turning this into a unified tag should be possible, but it should be a timely affair which requires a lot of investment and can’t generally occur prior tolerances European contact. A repeat of Imperator’s Rome where the Socii are basically an odd quirk of your starting position, as opposed to the source of your strength, should be avoided. There an institution which was expanded and only went away towards the end of the timeframe is abolished almost immediately and without consequence. I don’t want that for Mesoamerica. The tributary arrangement should be the path of least resistance and even if the long term payoff is worth it, perusing alternative strategies should be an uphill battle.

On that topic, I could see maybe an Aztec IO forming if they set up their 'Empire' that represents this complex situation. Not quite a mini HRE, but this could also be used to better simulate how the subjects of the Aztecs swapped sides to support the Spanish, something that EUIV was unable to represent. Spain didn't really so much conquer Mexico, so much as they co-opted the Aztec Empire by being literally anyone besides the Aztecs.

I mean specifically a tag rather than a country, from a technical standpoint.

Like, I can have tags like ENG for England, or I could just (since my understanding is that EU5 supports numerical tags) loop through a list of numbers for all the tags of the world. Does having a specific tag (such as ENG) have meaning, or could I just label them as "country 00111"? That was my point with that whole bit. To try to pull out what it actually means to be a particular tag when devoid of all other context (since, as I pointed out, all that context is removable and interchangeable; I could put ENG in Siberia and the game's gonna plug along just fine).

Like, what's actually inseparable from a tag? What isn't removable? What does being ENG versus "00346" actually mean? This is a game that has "formables", after all, which are fundamentally switching out that tag for another rather than just all those other interchangeable components. So evidently there's something specific there that isn't represented with all the other interchangeable components, and is unique and independent of everything else. What is that thing? Is there a thing at all?

I see what you mean, but it is hard to quantify I'll admit. But that lack of qantifiability is exactly why I want something (such as national ideas) in the game to represent this.

The issue is that a Tag isn't strictly speaking a government- as governments shift over time. Now, I think tag-swapping to certain kinds of government is a fun idea. Like the Papal States wouldn't really be the Papal States under a Monarchy or Republic (or Steppe Horde). Arguably Venice isn't really Venice if it's a republic. But arguably France is still France if it removes the Monarchy. Likewise, certain formables can represent different approaches to governments- like the Angevins represent a difference in governance values that the English and French monarchies would not have (and isn't something I want solely portrayed by societal value sliders that can be moved around at player discretion).

This is why I like the China-Dome and Japan-Domes- several different tags with several different national ideas that represent different approaches to governance- the Shun for instance hew to a more populist understanding of the Chinese system than the Ming had, and of course this also helps separate the Ming from the Qing. In vanilla EUIV, I do think this was a slight issue with the Japan formable- which many note had weaker ideas than some Daimyo. You could of course not take Japanese ideas, but you wouldn't get the missions either, so I think this should be like a separate decision.

But as said, not every tag is strictly speaking a 'government' according to our understanding, some are loosely affiliated tribes, others now are going to be pirate nations, or banks, or mercenary bands. They aren't strictly speaking a culture either, as Scottish culture can exist outside of the Scotland tag, and some cultures may have several tags among them. Yet others are associated with a Tag- English nationalists will always seek to form England rather than another tag for instance.

 

[Friedrich von Deutschland]

Aztec IO forming

Yeah an IO for the triple alliance plus tributaries would be really good.

 

[Arizal]

On that topic, I could see maybe an Aztec IO forming if they set up their 'Empire' that represents this complex situation. Not quite a mini HRE, but this could also be used to better simulate how the subjects of the Aztecs swapped sides to support the Spanish, something that EUIV was unable to represent. Spain didn't really so much conquer Mexico, so much as they co-opted the Aztec Empire by being literally anyone besides the Aztecs.

You used a specific IO, and entertained the thought of replicating elsewhere, and dynamically. So how could that work? Any country with a certain government form could force another to join an IO in which it would be subservient. Those countries could be snatched away by countries which are way more powerful.

That way, you could have the Aztec and the Incan empire, and any other empire who could have risen and challenged their local dominance.

Of course, those empires could be named that way, and have their own "flavor", but the others could as well.

And now I'm wondering if other HREs could be created elsewhere...

 

[Arizal]

What is even "intelligently giving general conditions for some events or content to happen" supposed to mean?

It means taking a content currently given to one Tag only, and asking ourselves how its use could be expanded to encompass more possibilities, while staying true to the content.

There is a lot of examples. In fact, you can ask yourself that question for all the unique content there is in EUV and EUIV. How unique were they or could they be, really? What were they dependant on? Can you find values in game that could represent their causes, and if so, can you craft an extension to them that could apply to everyone, or as much countries as possible?

That would only enrich the game!

 

[JacceDON]

It means taking a content currently given to one Tag only, and asking ourselves how its use could be expanded to encompass more possibilities, while staying true to the content.

This sounds like a paradox. You want to take content that is defined by it's parameters and make it ubiquitous, while at the same time staying true to the content that is only defined by it's current parameters? To me this only sounds like a conversion from flavour to blandness - flavour is defined by exclusivity, not mere existence.

There is a lot of examples. In fact, you can ask yourself that question for all the unique content there is in EUV and EUIV. How unique were they or could they be, really? What were they dependant on? Can you find values in game that could represent their causes, and if so, can you craft an extension to them that could apply to everyone, or as much countries as possible?

That would only enrich the game!

I feel like you just don't know what flavour really is. Something that is extended in order to apply to everyone is not - and can never be - flavour, that's just meaningless stuff and filler.

The game will be terribly boring if unique experiences are replaced by a random grab bag of infinite variety. Sure, no playthrough will not be the other alike - but what is the point if it's all random anyways?

 

[Arizal]

I want to make the content defined by something else than "it happened to X country in real life, so it can only happen to X country in the game". I'm not asking for every country to have streltsy, I'm asking for every country to have the possibility of something similar if they meet certain criteria. It can be tied to societal values, laws and a lot other parameters, so that usually only Russia ends up having them. This isn't blandness if it's done well. Getting an unusual feature would be difficult and would require you to put your country out of its way. But it should be possible.

 

[SAmaster]

You used a specific IO, and entertained the thought of replicating elsewhere, and dynamically. So how could that work? Any country with a certain government form could force another to join an IO in which it would be subservient. Those countries could be snatched away by countries which are way more powerful.

That way, you could have the Aztec and the Incan empire, and any other empire who could have risen and challenged their local dominance.

Of course, those empires could be named that way, and have their own "flavor", but the others could as well.

And now I'm wondering if other HREs could be created elsewhere...

No not any country. Where are you getting that from?

I'd restrict this to Meso-America firstly and foremostly. Likely among nations with the Nahua religion. Potentially a few more requirements, but I'd need more knowledge of Meso-American history to delve into that. The Mayans would focus more on recreating the more centralized Mayan league instead, and get mechanics about that (again I'm not educated enough to say if that should get it's own IO, but I suspect not given what I currently understand).

I'd give the Aztecs a mission-tree that better helps guide them to their historical path to power from obscurity, so they don't end up an 'alt-history loser' thanks to random AI roles, but I'd also give other Nahuatl tags a 'semi-generic' branch that helps them potentially form the 'Not-Aztec' empire under different conditions, with extra variety added to potentially make their version of the Empire more or less repressive to make it so they can be more than just 'Diet Aztecs'.

Incan Empire far as I know doesn't need a very complex diplomatic situation to be represented- it was a highly centralized empire that probably still requires a lot of flavor to help highlight their successes (one I've been lobbying for is the ability to sponsor expeditions to trade with the Polynesians), but I don't think they need fully fleshed out unique mechanics as of yet (I'm sure on release Incan experts will find some stuff there though).

I want to make the content defined by something else than "it happened to X country in real life, so it can only happen to X country in the game". I'm not asking for every country to have streltsy, I'm asking for every country to have the possibility of something similar if they meet certain criteria. It can be tied to societal values, laws and a lot other parameters, so that usually only Russia ends up having them. This isn't blandness if it's done well. Getting an unusual feature would be difficult and would require you to put your country out of its way. But it should be possible.

Are you saying instead 'Any country that maxes quantity ideas should get Streltsy'? Cause that's what it sounds like.

Now I think what you mean is say Poland gets a reward in their mission tree that grants them (a limited ammount of) Streltsy if they conquer Moscow. Now I think that's fine, that's a nice reward for a difficult challenge, and it makes a degree of sense for their to be Slavic crossover there. But that's still only giving it to about two countries, so it doesn't lose its uniqueness.

This is very different than say the proposition of say 'England should be able to dynamically generate their own Samurai'.

 

[JacceDON]

I want to make the content defined by something else than "it happened to X country in real life, so it can only happen to X country in the game". I'm not asking for every country to have streltsy, I'm asking for every country to have the possibility of something similar if they meet certain criteria. It can be tied to societal values, laws and a lot other parameters, so that usually only Russia ends up having them. This isn't blandness if it's done well. Getting an unusual feature would be difficult and would require you to put your country out of its way. But it should be possible.

But that IS blandness, that is the definition of blandness. If every nation COULD be played pretty much the same, then every nation WILL be played pretty much the same. That is how these games work, and that is how players work. There will be a meta, there will be guides, there will be obviously right ways and wrong ways to play the game - and the result will be a bland game that has no replayability value whatsoever.

 

[SAmaster]

But that IS blandness, that is the definition of blandness. If every nation COULD be played pretty much the same, then every nation WILL be played pretty much the same. That is how these games work, and that is how players work. There will be a meta, there will be guides, there will be obviously right ways and wrong ways to play the game - and the result will be a bland game that has no replayability value whatsoever.

This disconnect seems to be the main issue of this discussion.

 

[Arizal]

Are you saying instead 'Any country that maxes quantity ideas should get Streltsy'? Cause that's what it sounds like.

Now I think what you mean is say Poland gets a reward in their mission tree that grants them (a limited ammount of) Streltsy if they conquer Moscow. Now I think that's fine, that's a nice reward for a difficult challenge, and it makes a degree of sense for their to be Slavic crossover there. But that's still only giving it to about two countries, so it doesn't lose its uniqueness.

This is very different than say the proposition of say 'England should be able to dynamically generate their own Samurai'.

Yes, I'm saying the first thing. Only, not just "maxing quantity" would be needed. Surely other things can be linked to "having a national guard". I don't even think it should be linked with "maxing quantity". If anything, the streltsy were an elite force.

And here comes the distinction between mechanical flavour and textual flavour I talked about in the other thread : they don't have to be called streltsy.

I'm not asking for England to have samurai. What is a samurai? Again, I don't know their full history, but from what I get they were nobles in arms. Is that really different, functionally, from knights? If not, England should keep its knights. If it is, maybe you can imagine an English name that would cover this reality, and wonder in which conditions the samurai were created as a special cast.

But that IS blandness, that is the definition of blandness. If every nation COULD be played pretty much the same, then every nation WILL be played pretty much the same. That is how these games work, and that is how players work. There will be a meta, there will be guides, there will be obviously right ways and wrong ways to play the game - and the result will be a bland game that has no replayability value whatsoever.

I understand what you mean : if there is a perfect meta, everyone will follow it. I'm just trying to express that, if the system is well done, there would be opportunity costs to get to that supposedly "perfect" state. You would lose advantages previously granted to you, and quite possibly well adapted to your starting conditions. It might be incredibly painful to get rid of a law you have had for centuries only so that you can have prussian space marines. And would those really be worth it? There should be some sort of internal balance too, so that no mechanic in the game is completely overpowered by itself.

 

[JacceDON]

I understand what you mean : if there is a perfect meta, everyone will follow it. I'm just trying to express that, if the system is well done, there would be opportunity costs to get to that supposedly "perfect" state. You would lose advantages previously granted to you, and quite possibly well adapted to your starting conditions. It might be incredibly painful to get rid of a law you have had for centuries only so that you can have prussian space marines. And would those really be worth it? There should be some sort of internal balance too, so that no mechanic in the game is completely overpowered by itself.

Having different starting positions isn't a substitute for flavour, if all nations COULD be played with the optimal mix of military and administrative mechanics or whatever then every playthrough will drift towards it. It will be just like in the CK-series, it might take 100 or 150 or even 200 years - but no matter what you will end up with that insane strong, genius, immortal and absolutely stacked ruler that summits the playthrough and causes you to end the run.

Some law or institution might put off the Prussian space marines for 50 years, but if every nation can have them then every player will get them every time. Talk about opportunity cost is a fantasy, less than optimal choices are ALWAYS going to be seen as undesirable if there are better options on the table, the gameplay loop is going to end up in trying to max out every stat and then there's that.

 

[SAmaster]

Yes, I'm saying the first thing. Only, not just "maxing quantity" would be needed. Surely other things can be linked to "having a national guard". I don't even think it should be linked with "maxing quantity". If anything, the streltsy were an elite force.

And here comes the distinction between mechanical flavour and textual flavour I talked about in the other thread : they don't have to be called streltsy.

I'm not asking for England to have samurai. What is a samurai? Again, I don't know their full history, but from what I get they were nobles in arms. Is that really different, functionally, from knights? If not, England should keep its knights. If it is, maybe you can imagine an English name that would cover this reality, and wonder in which conditions the samurai were created as a special cast.

I understand what you mean : if there is a perfect meta, everyone will follow it. I'm just trying to express that, if the system is well done, there would be opportunity costs to get to that supposedly "perfect" state. You would lose advantages previously granted to you, and quite possibly well adapted to your starting conditions. It might be incredibly painful to get rid of a law you have had for centuries only so that you can have prussian space marines. And would those really be worth it? There should be some sort of internal balance too, so that no mechanic in the game is completely overpowered by itself.

The Knights vs. Samurai concept is a good example to illustrate this point-

Knights were uniquely European but shared among multiple states. Why? Well Europe had ample iron deposits that meant heavy armor (chainmail) was easy to get a hold of, but still very expensive to use. With the collapse of the Roman Empire and the rise of feudalism, Kings could not afford to either collect their own taxes or raise their own troops, and thus feudalism was invented with the nobility acting as intermediaries, exchanging taxes in the form of money with supplying their own men, weapons, armor, and horses in times of war. Which also saw the invention of castles. Knights thus are distinguished as decentralized nobility with access to a large amount of iron that they self-funded, with enough idle time to train in the arts of war and act as professional heavy troops.

Contrast this with China which was heavily centralized and iron-poor- they had to import metals for their weapons and armor, meaning it was easy for the Emperor to concentrate power over himself, rather than that of the nobility. We can also contrast how the Emperor could revoke governorships, while European Kings could not so easily revoke noble titles as they were tied to aristocratic blood.

Of course the Knights also had Knightly Orders (the Templars) unique within Catholicism, which tied them to religion, and even in 'secular' kingdoms they practiced codes of chivalry that defined their conduct.

Now lets look at the Samurai- Japan is also metal poor, but this led to more complex forging techniques to get the most out of their metal that they could. Samurai also started off life as light-bow-cavalry before transitioning to heavy infantry (with horses still playing an important role). While the Japanese Emperor was initially very centralized, they decentralized as the Emperor started caring more about writing poetry than governing, hence the rise of the Shogunate. However, the Samurai had uniquely shinto-expressions, incorporating aspects of Zen-Buddhism. They were also expected to be poets, as it was seen as a way of helping formulate strategy (not unlike Chess, though that wasn't integral to a Knights education). And similar to Chivalry they had Bushido Codes, but we cannot equate the two since they have wildly different proscriptions about how to act in life (we should also note- neither were formally codified into one group).

What also separates the Knight from the Samurai were different aspects of Feudalism- Knights were in constant war, meaning succession disputes, while common, weren't as pressing as Japan, which only faced off against the Jomon peoples, Korea a few times, the Mongols twice. Land was at a premium in Japan, doubly so since it is so mountainous and terrible for farms (with Samurai paying taxes in the form of Rice for most of history). So this lead to the famed Japanese discipline- to die before surrender. Because death in service of the Emperor guaranteed land for your family. This in fact, led to the collapse of the shogunate prior to the Ashikaga when the Mongols invaded- in a defensive war, you gain no land. And so Samurai died in battle against the Mongols with no new land to be parceled out. This lead to the Samurai questioning what they were getting out of the system, and thus overthrow the Shogun and replaced him with the weaker Ashikaga shogunate.

So what we have is a system in Europe that played out very similarly across several different cultures for similar reasons, vs. a system that only played out in Japan for reasons that are entirely unique to Japan.

Ergo, I think it makes sense that Knights are something common across Christian Europe, while Samurai remain unique to Japan.

Having different starting positions isn't a substitute for flavour, if all nations COULD be played with the optimal mix of military and administrative mechanics or whatever then every playthrough will drift towards it. It will be just like in the CK-series, it might take 100 or 150 or even 200 years - but no matter what you will end up with that insane strong, genius, immortal and absolutely stacked ruler that summits the playthrough and causes you to end the run.

Some law or institution might put off the Prussian space marines for 50 years, but if every nation can have them then every player will get them every time. Talk about opportunity cost is a fantasy, less than optimal choices are ALWAYS going to be seen as undesirable if there are better options on the table, the gameplay loop is going to end up in trying to max out every stat and then there's that.

Exactly- if I'm going to play the game in the same way, why not just take the stronger starting position?

 

[Arizal]

Having different starting positions isn't a substitute for flavour, if all nations COULD be played with the optimal mix of military and administrative mechanics or whatever then every playthrough will drift towards it. It will be just like in the CK-series, it might take 100 or 150 or even 200 years - but no matter what you will end up with that insane strong, genius, immortal and absolutely stacked ruler that summits the playthrough and causes you to end the run.

Some law or institution might put off the Prussian space marines for 50 years, but if every nation can have them then every player will get them every time. Talk about opportunity cost is a fantasy, less than optimal choices are ALWAYS going to be seen as undesirable if there are better options on the table, the gameplay loop is going to end up in trying to max out every stat and then there's that.

What if prussian militarism had in its requirement to be utterly devastated by another country while being neutral in a war, a very traumatic experience which would make your whole society say : "never again!" and develop a very militaristic mindset? And that would be more probable in Germany since a certain religious war and the decentralized nature of the empire would make it more likely to have foreign troops on your soil.

I know some people gamed "crown and country" in EUIV in order to gain more absolutism. I never quite did that. I felt like losing 10 years of my playthrough twisting the game in order to get a bonus wasn't worth it.

I suppose those same people would devastate their country in order to get the famed space marines. At this point... be my guest, but at least militarism would have an in-game explanation, and wouldn't be predicated on the Prussian being better than everyone at military. And this last point, by the way, is why I hate country-specific mechanics. They make it seem like countries had to get such and such bonuses inherently, while it wasn't the case.

 

[Palfouri]

But that IS blandness, that is the definition of blandness. If every nation COULD be played pretty much the same, then every nation WILL be played pretty much the same. That is how these games work, and that is how players work. There will be a meta, there will be guides, there will be obviously right ways and wrong ways to play the game - and the result will be a bland game that has no replayability value whatsoever.

This is already the case in EUIV. The game is considered so easy specifically because of how effortless it is to metagame the AI. DHEs and Mission Trees barely change this because all they do is supercharge the game you were already playing by feeding even more into modifier stacking. If your plan is to blob in the New World your gameplay loop isn't significantly altered because you got +1 colonists as Spain and you'd probably find it more engaging to start as a country that doesn't get handed a colonial empire in the first place. If anything they just introduce a new form of repetition because you're always incentivized to just follow them and do nothing else.

 

[SAmaster]

This is already the case in EUIV. The game is considered so easy specifically because of how effortless it is to metagame the AI. DHEs and Mission Trees barely change this because all they do is supercharge the game you were already playing by feeding even more into modifier stacking. If your plan is to blob in the New World your gameplay loop isn't significantly altered because you got +1 colonists as Spain and you'd probably find it more engaging to start as a country that doesn't get handed a colonial empire in the first place. If anything they just introduce a new form of repetition because you're always incentivized to just follow them and do nothing else.

I don't follow.

Giving Spain a +1 Colonist doesn't seem like it makes it easier to metagame with them. It just seems like it makes it easier to colonize, which you don't seem to be saying is the meta-game.

 

[JacceDON]

What if prussian militarism had in its requirement to be utterly devastated by another country while being neutral in a war, a very traumatic experience which would make your whole society to say : "never again!" and develop a very militaristic mindset? And that would be more probable in Germany since a certain religious war and the decentralized nature of the empire would make it more likely to have foreign troops on your soil.

I know some people gamed "crown and country" in EUIV in order to gain more absolutism. I never quite did that. I felt like losing 10 years of my playthrough twisting the game in order to get a bonus wasn't worth it.

I have purposefully gone through the Crown and Country disaster every single playthrough that has gone past the early game, it's such an obvious thing to do that I'm pretty sure you're in a small minority that doesn't. If Prussian space marines are locked behind something similar (even if it is significantly worse than C&C) people are still going to go through it because having the best possible army is just that satisfying. In EU4 neither money nor MP is very important - modifiers are the currency that matters. I honestly think that the same will be the case in EU5, where neither population nor economy will hold a candle to the inherent value of the best military and administrative modifiers.

I suppose those same people would devastate their country in order to get the famed space marines. At this point... be my guest, but at least militarism would have an in-game explanation, and wouldn't be predicated on the Prussian being better than everyone at military. And this last point, by the way, is why I hate country-specific mechanics. They make it seem like countries had to get such and such bonuses inherently, while it wasn't the case.

Where you say "be my guest" I see the cracks in the painting. I get that you dislike the mental notion of nations having inherent unique strengths and weaknesses, but with how Paradox games work and with how human psychology works it's the only correct way to make an entertaining and flavourful GSG.

 

[Palfouri]

I don't follow.

Giving Spain a +1 Colonist doesn't seem like it makes it easier to metagame with them. It just seems like it makes it easier to colonize, which you don't seem to be saying is the meta-game.

If your plan is to colonize it's objectively better because it allows you to colonize faster. Conversely if you aren't, it's completely useless. Either way it's not going to change how you play in this instance. The same way you're always incentivized to stack Morale and Discipline whether or not you play as a country that gets buffs to them like Prussia.

 

[SAmaster]

If your plan is to colonize it's objectively better because it allows you to colonize faster. Conversely if you aren't, it's completely useless. Either way it's not going to change how you play in this instance. The same way you're always incentivized to stack Morale and Discipline whether or not you play as a country that gets buffs to them like Prussia.

Well yeah. Spain did a lot of colonizing. They SHOULD be better at it. I don't get your point.

 

[Palfouri]

Well yeah. Spain did a lot of colonizing. They SHOULD be better at it. I don't get your point.

The question isn't whether they should have it better, the question is whether their bonuses make it so you'd actually play them differently from any other colonizer. The colonization "meta" stays the same.