Bret Devereaux

I should note that the trade network is one part of the game that remains solidly Eurocentric; trade moves in a predicable direction and while it can be diverted this way or that in small ways, trade lanes begin in the Americas or Asia and end in Europe. 31/46

Consequently, building a trade empire from places that aren't Europe is usually impossible, restricting non-European states to large territorial empires (generally you either run a small state on trade or a big state on land taxes in the game). 32/46

All of that said, EU4 still does have some interesting bits of historical lessons. As noted, the map is fairly scrupulous and EU4 players are more likely to know where Prussia (or Mali, etc) is from playing. 33/46

As a 'Realist Political Dynamics Simulator' it is almost peerless. The value of that depends on how accurately you think Neorealism describes international systems. I think it is a useful lens, which lends EU4 some value in presenting that. 34/46

Historical events are trickier. The game is free-form, so events after the start date will not unfold in perfect historical order, though some major events (Printing Press, Reformation, etc) are encouraged by game mechanics to happen around the right time. 35/46

The big issue is the degree to which, without serious player intervention, European dominance by 1800 is inevitable. Now of course European colonial empires did happen, so it seems odd to fault the game for regularly producing historical outcomes... 36/46

...but the degree to which those outcomes are presented as mechanistic and inevitable, rather than contingent is troublesome and may lead some careless players down a fairly dark path of historical thinking. 37/46

The game is great for stimulating informative 'wiki-walks' as players want to find out what the heck the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was, or what Maurician Infantry is, or investigate the printing press. In that sense, the historical rootedness has real value. 38/46