Why is it that Louisiana can form an independent state in EU4?

[Tabbel]

Something I am missing or? Louisiana was never really an independent state. Wouldn't it be better served to add events giving cores to native powers that arose over time in the central US instead? (IE the Pueblo, Sioux, Comanche, etc.?)

[Xara]

I believe it's simply to represent the non-Canadian area of the Louisiana purchase, which was French lands. Louisiana, Canada, and Quebec all have potential revolt cores that I've seen.

[Harper]

As Xara says, it's not the U.S. State of Louisiana, it's the French (and occasionally Spanish) colony of Louisiana, which had its own culture distinct from other French colonies in the New World (e.g. Quebec, Acadie, Haiti, Guyana).

[Tabbel]

Even still - unlike Quebec/Canada, Louisiana never really had a historical revolt risk/attempts to be a separate nation of its own right. And everyone knows the Lousiana purchase, still doesn't explain why it gets to be on the same ranks as other actual polities when other polities aren't included.

[Xara]

There's quite a lot that is allowed to potentially happen that never actually did.

[Tabbel]

While true - I think its probably the most ahistorical potential nation in game. There wasn't really any nationalism in the Louisiana region ever, pretty much nonexistant. If they wanted further post colonial potential revolts/cores I think the native states that arose in the 1600s/1700s would be a decent choice along with some more obscure uprisals that actuallly did happen (West Florida, San Chanta Cruz, etc.)

[Tabbel]

What I said got me thinking, would it perhaps be an interesting idea for an expansion to introduce "horde" equivalent nations in the Americas and in colonies? Nations like the Sioux, Comanche, Apache, Mapuche, etc. could arise in certain provinces if they are unclaimed by 1700ish and have access to cavalry units? Or perhaps include an event about the Pueblo Revolt (one of the biggest defeats, if not the bigest, of European colonization against the indigenous. The revolt had drastic side effects for the next few centuries too, as the Pueblo captured thousands of horses and bred them/sold them/traded them to the rest of N. America allowing nations like the Sioux to become what we see of them today. Also it scrapped Spain's plans to colonize the center of the US.)

I think as a whole this would be a muuuch better idea than having Louisiana being able to become an independent state if the developers wanted something to happen in the center of the US.

[Xara]

Anything that makes the colonies and native areas more interesting would be good. Apart from annexing the ones already there, colonies might as well be automated to spread for what it takes to create them now.

[Free Palestine]

引用自 Tabbel：

Something I am missing or? Louisiana was never really an independent state. Wouldn't it be better served to add events giving cores to native powers that arose over time in the central US instead? (IE the Pueblo, Sioux, Comanche, etc.?)

Because as soon as you unpause the game, it ceases to be historical at all.

[Tabbel]

But thats the point if you have hundreds of historical revolts, why include a territory that never revolted, never wanted independence, and at best is known for having been traded back and forth between nations and never was conceived of in anyway of potentially being independent? The fact is there are MANY other choices they could have done for the Americas that would have been better to flesh out the two continents, but choosing Louisiana is just plain lazy.

[Xara]

The top has Quebec and Canada, the middle has USA and Lousiana, the bottom has Mexico, and south america has Brazil and a bunch of others. I don't get what's to get so up in arms over it. It simply represents the southern holdings of France & co. This is ahistorical - who's to say what would have happened if the area HADN'T traded hands and had coalesced its own identity? It's simply allowing for that possibility, and I sure as hell wouldn't call it 'lazy'.

[Tabbel]

But thats the thing each of those nations in South America and (Haiti in the Carribbean) and Mexico are states that actually did revolt/had a culture that wanted independence in history. That viewed themselves as potentially independent states. Representing a culture group does not mean it was, is, or ever even thought of the possibility of being independent. Louisiana IS EXACTLY a lazy idea - considering the possibilities they could have done with Natives in the Americas.

And if they cared about balance at all, then why are there no possibilities for colonial states to arise in Africa, in the Pacific, or in Australia? The fact that they pretty much made up a nation [and the French population was confined only to a fraction of the territory that even appears as its cores - heck the Spanish European population was higher than the French in some of the cores given to it] is the definition of lazy.

[Free Palestine]

The game isn't historical, Tabbel. That's it. It's not meant to be historical either.
It's not lazy. There's nothing wrong with inventing a nation, because that happens every time you play the game and the borders change.

[Tabbel]

Of course its a series of what ifs - but its simply dishonest to say inventing a nation from thin air isn't lazy. Playing a nation that existed/wanted to exist at one point is significantly different from playing a nation that never even conceived of itself as an entity... ever. What if scenarios can be fun sure (see Sunset Invasion) but adding something for pretty much no purpose when there are other actual nations/movements in the region they could have added instead of Louisiana is lazy.

It would be just as bad if Paradox made a nation of aliens or dinosaurs. And just because a dinosaur and alien file exists in EU4 (an alien/dinosaur event file does actually exist although it isn't used), doesn't mean its a good idea to include it in game.

[Free Palestine]

引用自 Tabbel：

Of course its a series of what ifs - but its simply dishonest to say inventing a nation from thin air isn't lazy. Playing a nation that existed/wanted to exist at one point is significantly different from playing a nation that never even conceived of itself as an entity... ever. What if scenarios can be fun sure (see Sunset Invasion) but adding something for pretty much no purpose when there are other actual nations/movements in the region they could have added instead of Louisiana is lazy.

It would be just as bad if Paradox made a nation of aliens or dinosaurs. And just because a dinosaur and alien file exists in EU4 (an alien/dinosaur event file does actually exist although it isn't used), doesn't mean its a good idea to include it in game.

I don't know how you can say that. Is it the name you object to? Do you not like that nations can have different borders than what borders they had historically?

I don't think I'm quite following you. Are you saying that it was lazy for PI to make a country initially that wasn't there? I think that's what you're saying, right? If that's the case, you have a point, sure, but I don't know how big of a deal it is seeing that the game itself isn't historical. You're obviously interested in history, pretty much as we all are for playing these games. I can see why this would annoy you.

It's not just Sunset Invasion that's a what-if scenario. The whole game is a what-if scenario.

I think I understand better what you're saying, but I won't know for sure until you confirm it.

I think you last paragraph is a classic reductio ad absurdum argument. I mean, come on now.

Out of all the things that are going on with this game right now, for me personally, I think there are more pressing issues going on with it. I'm not trying to take anything away from you though. If it bothers you, it bothers you, and I can see why.

[Tabbel]

Of course there are some more pressing issues and while my comparison be reductio ad absurdum, it still doesn't make the inclusion of Louisiana any less absurd on its own right. You are right the whole game is a what if scenario. And I think you are starting to get my point that its:

1. Lazy to create a country that never thought of itself as a country, its culture never viewed itself as independent, and never had any history, attempts, literature, or writing asking for its independence.
2. Its "Louisiana culture" never really spread outside of Louisiana proper and the interior of the territory that its given cores for was never populated by any Europeans really until America came though
3. There are actual states (colonial and native) that actually attempted to rise up, some of them failed and others suceeded. Its lazy to choose Louisiana then, considering there are Colonial and native states in the Continental US that would have been faaaar better choices than Louisiana.

I think its pretty clear (although I admit, petty) what I object to:

1. That a non-existant state is being used as a placeholder for actual states
2. That it adds to the lazy feel of the design regarding colonialism in general

I am perfectly fine with nations expanding to ahistorical places (otherwise I wouldn't be playing this game...). While it isn't that big of an issue, it is lazy design including that name, that territory, and basically inventing something from thin air with pretty much 0 basis in any reality - instead of creating more comprehensive colonial mechanics if Paradox wanted a greater balance in colonialism.