Europa Universalis IV is The Best Genocide Simulator of The Year

The dark heart of Paradox Interactive’s Europa Universalis IV.

The first minutes I spent with Europa Universalis IV were a beautiful tragedy. I’d elected to start the game as Austria in 1492. Right away I was faced with a troubling situation. Some of my provinces in the western half of Europe were separated from me by the national borders of several other countries, and cut off from their motherland had forgotten the joys of living under my benevolent rule.

Nationalists had risen up and laid siege to several of my forts. They were in fact very close to forcing their demands for independence.

All that lay between my loyal subjects (For all of my subjects are loyal, even if they don’t always know it themselves. That’s why they need me, you see: because I know what’s best for them) and the purposeless ennui of independence were the sixty thousand men of the Austrian army.

But you can’t just march a doom stack of troops across five countries without permission, not unless you’re willing to fight your way through. My diplomats scurried along, carrying my will to the less enlightened segments of Europe that had not yet accepted me into their hearts.

Now they may be backwards and ignorant foreigners, but they know a good idea when they hear it, and letting thousands and thousands of foreign soldiers tramp through their fields and clog up their roads is a marvelous idea. I felt so generous not even asking for anything in return.

Not all were so wise, but enough were that I could plot a twisty route across Europe for my soldiers to go liberate the shit out of my wayward provinces. I would save them from the rising doom of independence. I would save them from themselves. So off my soldiers marched, sixty thousand of the finest conscripts my commissars could drag from under their beds.
So off my soldiers marched, sixty thousand of the finest conscripts my commissars could drag from under their beds. Five thousand made it back.
Five thousand made it back.

I couldn’t believe it. How had such a catastrophe happened? Venice took the opportunity to pounce and crossed my southern border, burning everything in their path. I couldn’t afford to replace my losses, and what replacements I could scrounge up wouldn’t be ready for months. I went back to an earlier save and tried again. Again, my army melted away like spring snow. This is how I learned about attrition.

You see every province can only support so many soldiers. If more soldiers are present in that province than can be supported, some of them start to die. The route I’d selected for My glorious march against freedom couldn’t support more than twenty thousand troops in any given province. So the army had simply died of starvation until it was down to a more manageable size.

With their morale low and their numbers depleted, they were cut to ribbons by the rebels, and only found victory by burying the enemy under mountains of corpses. Again, I reloaded an earlier save. Again I tried, but this time I broke the army into three parts, and plotted three separate routes across Europe and had them fall on three separate rebel-held provinces. Success.

From that moment on I was in love with this game. Europa Universalis IV is a pitiless tutor. There are dozens of systems to keep track of, many of which interact with each other and can create perverse cycles of dysfunction in an otherwise well-run empire. At the start of the game, troops can take months to recruit and even a small army can bankrupt a great power. Planning requires forethought measured in decades, if not centuries.

And all the while, the engines of history churn on, heedless of of the desires of rulers and peasants alike. Drifting cultural loyalties, religious insurrection, disputed lines of succession, and even simple bad luck can wreck a scheme decades in the making. Your challenge, as the kind of immortal, disembodied spirit of a country, is to withstand the onslaught of perils and misfortune and lead your country to greatness.

When any given week can bring an ill omen in the sky which leads to a drop in stability which leads to a rebellion breaking out in one corner of the empire which leads to three other rebellions in three other provinces, leading to the ruin of all you have striven for these past five decades and more, you must plan for catastrophe.

You must learn to prioritize, to put out fires quickly, and to keep your eyes on the goal. When you’re fighting three separate wars, putting down rebellions, managing a religious conversion, bringing insolent merchants to heel, and thinking “yes, it’s all going according to plan,” then you’ll have arrived. You won’t be a master, but you’ll have unlocked the secret to playing and enjoying such a gargantuan, sprawling, and fundamentally unforgiving game.

After getting Austria up to snuff as a central European powerhouse, I thought I’d try my hand at overrunning the New World as the British. As an American, I have a perverse fascination with playing as the British and trying to keep the Revolution from happening. Or, if that’s not possible, at least win it for King and Country.

So after a dicey few decades in which I cut the Hundred Year’s War short by about two thirds, I untangled myself from Continental politics and focused on rushing up the tech tree as fast as my country could go. The history of this alternate world is filled with the names of explorers I sent west, never to be heard from again. Finally, I managed to get a ship out to Labrador and back without losing it, and was able to plant the flag and start my first overseas colony.

And it’s here where things started to get a bit…fucked up. I was still having loads of fun, but suddenly I couldn’t get into playing a jovial dictator relentlessly pushing her borders back and using the bones of dead peasants as the mortar in her new palace. Somewhere, deep in my chest, a little voice was whispering this is really fucking sick.

Let’s be clear about one thing: in real life, the colonization of North America by European settlers was only possible because of the accompanying slow-motion genocide of the people who were already living here. The First Nations of the Americas did not have castles, or royal dynasties, or a continent-spanning church like the Europeans, but they did have a civilization.

They had politics, trade, cultural exchange, territorial disputes, and wars. They built cities and temples, domesticated animals, and mastered their environment just as thoroughly as any other people on the planet.

I knew going in that I’d playing a game about a topic that, in real life, is horrifying to my (white, privileged) progressive sensibilities. I thought I was prepared for it.

Then I actually saw how they treat the Americas. For reference, here is what Europe looks like about a hundred and fifty years into the game, after several of the smaller states have been gobbled up by their larger neighbors.

Look at all that detail!

Europe in Europa Universalis IV

And here is what North America looks like, about ninety years after English settlers first landed in Canada.

Doesn't this seem a little...empty to you?

North America in Europa Universalis IV

Something is off. It took me a while to figure out what it was, but something felt a little strange about colonizing the Americas. It couldn’t be that I was not comfortable with playing a ruthlessly expansionary state. I mean, have you read the first part of this article?

Perhaps it was my uneasiness with gamifying a genocide that I directly benefit from, even centuries after it started. (Yes, white Americans, you ARE the beneficiaries of genocide. Get used to it.) That’s probably part of it, but a greater part of it, I think, is how the game portrays that atrocity.

When you finally get a ship over to North America, you’ll notice that things look a little different. Europe is crammed cheek to jowl with minor duchies and single-province powers, at least in the early game. There is no square inch of territory unaccounted for. But when you get to the Americas, you’ll see a lot of “empty” territory. The provinces and territories that are not claimed by any power or nation can be colonized.

You do this by sending a colonist to that province, and watch as its population grows. Once it hits a threshold, it becomes a productive city, and you can recall your colonist to do it again elsewhere.

Except that there wasn’t any “empty” territory in real life. There were people who already lived in the Americas, and in Africa, and in Asia. Entire cultures rose and fell, for thousands of years without European involvement. But when you get to where a lot of these people lived in Europa Universalis IV, you are presented with a blank spot on the map, and a suggestion that nobody who matters lives there.

This is not to say that there is no thought given to the natives. Oh, they’re represented all right.

And with that, an entire culture is reduced to a 3 entry stat line and caricature.

Colonization screen in Europa Universalis IV

You can see a simplified take on their religion, a rough population estimate, and the only two stats that most indigenous peoples are allowed to have in this game: “aggressiveness” and “ferocity”. That’s right, your ancestors might have been a peaceful culture of fishermen, but in EUIV they were aggressive and ferocious. Like animals in need of taming, really.

And can you really call it aggression if they attack the colonists for taking their land? Since when does self defense, or the defense of one’s territory, become aggressive? Why, when brown people are doing it, of course!

(Speaking of which, look at how Native Americans are actually pictured here. That doesn’t strike anyone else as a bit…broad? A bit caricatured? A bit…say it with me now…racist?)

There are some indigenous cultures that are granted the dignity of being represented as actual political actors. The Creek, the Iroquois, and so on. The problem is that these countries are superficially defined, and intentionally limited. Cultures with the “new world” technology group accrue technology at a snail’s pace, and are much slower to gather resources.

This means that no matter what you do, by the time the Europeans show up, you’re facing an apocalyptic war for survival that you can’t hope to win.

While there is some effort to reflect a different culture, mainly in the names of your national leaders and the graphics used to represent the buildings in your provinces, this is clearly a halfhearted effort. For example, the advisers that you hire to gain extra administrative, diplomatic, or military resources for example are all Europeans, no matter what culture you are playing as.

Some limitations that make a bit of sense in the European setting, like the inability to explore uncharted territory without first developing your technology base, only serve to lock Native American factions into their starting area. While European cultures are allowed to expand or contract their borders in gleeful disregard of historical fact, Native American cultures are chained to a rough approximation of where they historically existed.

The national decisions and missions available for a player to select are greatly reduced as well, which means that most countries that don’t border the Mediterranean are going to be very stale and generic compared to, for example, the intrigues of the Holy Roman Empire.

And it’s hard to believe that this isn’t intentional. It’s hard to believe that the existence of the Huron and the Iroquois aren’t only there for the European player’s benefit. Having some cultures represented by countries with definable borders and a diplomacy screen allows players who are playing a European power to simulate the diplomatic relations that some colonial powers had with some of the Native Americans.

I’m pretty sure that’s the only reason why some Native Americans are given “European-style” countries in this game at all. The problem with this game is not that you can colonize the New World; the problem is that this game only includes the New World so that it can be colonized.

A pretty good piece of evidence for this theory is how trade is handled in EUIV. Trade, in Europa Universalis IV, is a one-way prospect. A province creates trade power, and that trade power is pushed up along a linear path, where it is eventually collected either at your capital or by a merchant you’ve sent to collect it.

There is no way for trade to flow “backwards,” which means it is impossible for cultures at the “upstream” end of a trade network to benefit from it. In this game, trade is only for extracting wealth from places that aren’t Europe. I haven’t played much with trying to colonize Africa. Not after I saw one of the provinces had as its trade good “slaves” with a picture of a big iron ball and chain.

For a game about creating alternate histories, Europa Universalis IV has some very firm opinions about what should happen to the peoples living in the parts of the world that aren’t Europe. None of them good. I don’t mean to say that it endorses genocide, merely that it doesn’t question it. The game accepts it as natural, inevitable, and unworthy of comment.

There’s plenty of winking humor in how it treats the various atrocities that happened in Europe during this time, so I know they are aware of how things were horrible for many Europeans during that era. But there’s no clues to indicate that they really understand the horrors of colonization, as well.

Everyone knows that religious wars and inquisitions and violently repressing your own people is wrong. But not everybody agrees that colonizing other nations is wrong, and that makes all the difference. It’s like how in Grand Theft Auto players can have a grand old time perpetrating mass murder on the streets of Liberty City, but many would have problems with a rape mini-game. We all agree murder is wrong, but rape is something people make excuses for.

We all agree that dictatorships are wrong, but colonization is something we make excuses for.

It’s an unsettled question. It’s a moral problem we have not yet agreed on an answer to. The distancing assumptions that allow us to vicariously enjoy the chaos of a 5-star rampage in downtown Los Santos are not available. Or, perhaps the assumptions are too available; perhaps the game relies on the assumption that moral question would never be asked.

And so for those of us who are aware of the question, and who care about it, it’s not a very exciting premise for a game.

It’s a fun game. A masterful game. A work of passion and talent. But I can’t enjoy it without reservations or recommend it without caveats. The moment you begin your colonization effort, the game takes a dark and troubling turn. It never really recovers from that. Now, if you don’t mind, I’ll be over here, attempting to unify the Holy Roman Empire into the modern state of Germany. And not doing any colonization.

There are 202 comments

  1. Bando Bast

    I’ve been saved by UN voting, as a Mongolian leader, from defeat by Aztec spaceship launching. That was Civilization, where differences between cultures is cosmetic or irrelevant. Even though, there were the barbarians to be dealt exclusively with violence.

    Europa Universalis is Latin for “Europe for the world!” Latin, a prestige pan-European language alluding to an empire of antiquity that projected European power all over. The lettering in the title is the capital script Romans used in monuments celebrating their conquests. All this reads as WARNING: EUROPECENTRISM!

    “Let’s tweak Civilization so that European cultures have the upper hand, for that is what history shows us” is a reasonable assumption of developers’ goal. If it’s so, they succeeded: the game we got is an Europe leaning Civilization.


  2. greatwyrmgold

    I’d like to make a couple notes.

    Of course the peoples of the Americas, subsaharan Africa, and Australia are going to always end up subjugated under the European boot. In the mid-1400’s (the earliest that the game starts), these groups of people had little metal, few organized nations, and all sorts of other handicaps compared to the organized, advanced Europeans. Simulating this is in no way implying that the Europeans were inherently superior (especially since the only reason they managed to pull ahead of, say, the Mesoamericans was their luck in having access to two continents of the best domestic species Earth has to offer plus similar climates and reasonable proximity to the earliest centers of agriculture, plus fertile soils, letting them start some of the most naturally prosperous farms in the world before most Americans even heard of maize); it’s just admitting that the nations which happened to be lucky enough to be located in Europe were better at conquest than the tribes found elsewhere.

    Also, it’s not impossible to be a Native American in EUIV who can challenge the Europeans. It just requires a player’s touch and a lot of dedication (although starting off next to a few other tribes you can vassalize/conquer before you hit Admin Tech 4 is extremely helpful). Heck, it doesn’t even require that much skill; I speak from experience. (It did require that dedication, though. Westernization lead to SO many revolts…)
    I’ve only tried it with the Aztec, but I imagine that even OPM American tribes and various African natives could pull it off just as well. The fact that the AI never manages it speaks as much of the AI as it does of the game.


  3. K.V

    EU4 is a historic strategy game (of European perspective, as the title hints) and history is what it is: full of wars, genocide, slavery, destruction of civilizations and subjugation of whole continents. It’s a really weird and annoying tendency to expect games or any other medium to question the history or prettify it as to not hurt anyone’s feelings. Europeans of that time-frame didn’t care much about the natives, who were much less advanced at the time of first encounters, and genocide is a rather good word for what often followed. This is what really happened in history and this is what is also simulated in the game. If you’re not interested of the European perspective of the history, there are mods to offer alternatives, but it’s rather impossible for the developer to deliver a single game from all the possible perspectives to the history while not giving in on the quality.


  4. James H Marks

    ‘I knew going in that I’d playing a game about a topic that, in real life, is horrifying to my (white, privileged) progressive sensibilities. I thought I was prepared for it.’

    What a complete moron you are


  5. Docrailgun

    Reading the article I was thinking the apologists wouldn’t waste time defending genocide. I wasn’t disappointed.


  6. conqueror

    ok let’s start …
    1. By 1444 (when this game starts) even in Europe the concepts of nation or country were relativeley new. Before that there were many privatly owned kingdoms all over Europe. So wanting for native american “nation” in game would be foolish.
    2. Most people living in Americas (as they called the continents) and sub-saharan Africa lived like nomadic tribes in jungles and steppes. There were very few of them in wast areas. They did not have cities, roads etc. They did not “own” legaly speaking any land for themselves. They were just people … living where they saw it fitting.
    3. There were exceptions (which are represented in game by giving them “eurpoean style country”), like “noble” Aztecs who would actualy hunt the before mentioned people and kill them in masses on top of their altars.
    4. Aztec (who were among most advanced of them) lived in cities, and even build pyramids, and had, what was a rarity in these areas, hieroglyph style writing. They did not know some inventions Europeans had like … paper, metal, wheel (yes they did not have that), gunpowder, profesional army (which was new thing even in Europe by the time), ocean-going ships…and many more (too much to list everything). In fact they were as advanced as … Ancient Egyptians some 5000 years ago. So again, why would you want for them in game to be as technologicaly capable as European nations is beyond me. It would be preposterous.
    5. What the world was like in these times is not known to us. We only know from historic accounts (European accounts for that matter). To recreate a map of America in 1400’s and list all tribes is impossible. No such historical map exist. In fact Europeans did not know Americas exist at all until discovered … and even then they taught it’s India and not a new continent. So it’s normal that only those catalogued by explorers and conquerors of the time are represented in game.
    6. and finaly … the point of playing as one of these nations … it’s as you would expect. they lived in a large area where they hunted and farmed. Ocasionaly fighting with other nerby tribes in ethernal strugle. They did not know what was beyond “their forest” and never went there. Ofc it’s not like playing Holy Roman Empire with their web of diplomacy and holy wars! I mean c’mon !!


  7. Joe Lamdin

    Classic US view of the colonisation of the americas , as other people have already stated mostly they were natives with extremely low populations finding a small area and starting up small towns would not affect the natives and yes in cases the Europeans would defend and fight against the natives for lands really they had no right to but they did not search for and find native Americans and kill them all it was not genocide. I’m not denying aggression between the colonists and the natives, but it was a rare case when they would ever meet. Which brings me on to my next point, you obviously you think you are being fair by claiming the white Americans are the beneficiarys of genocide, well actually the Americans were the ones who committed the genocide , I don’t know if its ignorance, arrogance or you just weren’t taught it in school but the acts committed by the USA in the 1800s against native Americans are acts only surpassed in evil by Hitler’s and Stalin’s. Additionally as the Americans systemically wiped out the natives Great Britain ( a European nation in which Americans love to blame for everything bad ever) supported a federation of natives to fight against American genocide, but sadly the US managed to weaken them too much before it was possible (see war of 1812). So please fucking admit guilt you American uneducated imbecile and stop shifting balme to Europe and please don’t post about history when you clearly know nothing about it.


    1. Brent

      I’m no apologist for the genocide committed by previous generations of Americans–and I agree that it is fair to call it genocide–but for some supercilious British twit to go around parading moral superiority in their relations vis-a-vis non-European cultures in the 19th century… it’s just too much. Do you really think the UK cared at all about the well-being of the poor oppressed Native Americans? No, they sought to stymie the growth of the United States, which they believed would threaten Canada. They had no qualms about killing natives who were allied with France during the French and Indian War theater of the Seven Years War. They had no qualms about raping, murdering, and colonizing Ireland, which incidentally set the precedent for New World colonization. When the Irish Famine hit, the British government proceeded by refusing to interrupt shipments of food out of the country, exacerbating the famine and allowing a million to die as punishment. British elites of the time blamed the famine on the bad national character of the Irish, namely their laziness and drunkenness. They had no qualms about addicting untold numbers of Chinese to opium and forcing the Chinese government to accept their right to sell their highly addictive drugs there. They had no qualms about subjugating cultures thousands of years older than them in India or massacring Indians who opposed their rule. Or mangling the partition of the country so badly that millions had to escape to the other side of the border for safety. They had no qualms about inventing the horrors of concentration camps during the Boer War.

      So, while you’re up there on your high English horse sneering down at lowly Americans who “were surpassed in evil only by Hitler and Stalin”, enjoy the view of a country that subjugated 25% of the world’s population, erased cultures on each of the continents, addicted millions to drugs for the profit of their merchants, and killed millions others. American history may be filled with evil against the native population of North America (and elsewhere), but the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree.


      1. Joe Lamdin

        Even though you may have overstated parts widely I agree with you; in my initial post I was trying to play Devil’s Advocate without ceding anything from Europe as I thought the article had achieved enough bashing (even if it was mostly senseless because this woman clearly knows nothing of history).But yes what the British have done in their history (even though a lot of it is great) is mostly overshawdoed by dark & evil deeds.Mainly I like to balme the upperclassmen of he country even today they are scummy little pathetic power grabbers. But mainly my point was that Americans in general seem to have this idea that they are exempt from awful things and only other countries do evil and that every decision America has ever made has been the correct one in the ‘eyes of god’. Also they seem to see their civil rights as something to be proud of, even though they didn’t ban slavery until 1863 which resulted in a civil war, whereas it was against common law in England since 1150 and the trading of slaves was banned in the empire 1819 and being that Great Britain pre World War 2 was awful for almost any rights (the exception being magna carta) that’s pretty awful for America. I dont want to seem as if I’m on my high horse because that’s exact thing I’m trying to argue against.
        (Excuse me if some dates are off they came from the top of my head)


  8. conqueror

    You mind your tongue.

    First – I am European and quite anti-american and proud of it. So, if you would actually know how to read, you would understand that my post was not about genocide of native Americans. That was not the main topic at all. It was about how a game depicts those people and why I think that is actually correct. You see it would be silly if Apache tribe would sail to Europe and conquer France … at least to me. There are historical reasons why this was not so and the game depicts them.

    Second to answer your post … never have i stated that what Americans did was not genocide. And yes your accounts are true – but you speak of time after 1800 – when America was already founded as a country. Up until then it was regarded to belong to various colonization countries (Great Britain, France, Spain … whatever the case may be). When Hernando Cortes conquered the Aztecs he claimed the land for Spain. It was under Spanish crown. So it’s fair to say that those who killed Aztecs were not Mexicans but rather Spanish – wouldn’t you agree?

    Now thirdly and finally – genocide and enslavement of natives were socially completely acceptable at the time by most Europeans. Just as it was completely normal for those times to burn the “witches” and “heretics” at the stake. That does not mean I approve of it, but those people did. Hell if you go way back in history, to the times of Julius Caesar, he exterminated entire tribes and societies in his conquest of Gaul, and he wrote a book about it and was proud of it. He was a hero.


  9. Will McGuire

    Interestingly enough the entire first DLC seems to have gone towards rectifying some of these problems adding dozens of playable Native nations, unique mechanics, and an easier path to technological advancement for them. They’re almost fun to play as now.


  10. Ivy O'Brien

    Hey, y’all. According to the book “Lies My Teacher Told Me” by history professor James W Loewen, the generally accepted reason that the Americas were so easy to conquer was because Europeans refused to bathe, and were teeming with disease. We were literally biological warfare, without even knowing it. It has nothing to do with other countries being “more advanced” than we were. After all, it took Gatling guns to take down the Zulus — in the mid-1800s. The use of gunpowder and iron techs, especially armour (not guns), was a significant advantage for Europe, but that in no way suggests that colonialism was inevitable. After all, it’s hard to fight an invading force when your community is infested with small pox, which is estimated to have killed up to 90% of certain Indigenous settlements.

    And what’s this about slow gathering rates? As if to imply that low population were some kind of inevitability of non-Christian living? As if to imply the Indigenous Americans were and are lazy and/or incompetent? The Salish peoples of the west coast were known to through gigantic potlatches, great gorging feasts where wealthy leaders would compete for how much they could give away. Hell, they even burned shit down to show how wealthy they were! There were thousands of thriving nations on Turtle Island before they were wrecked by plagues.

    greatwyrmgold makes an interesting case for the natural superiority of the European races, but it’s flat-out wrong. It is so flat-out wrong that it’s white supremacy, y’all.


    1. Nate

      It’s not about bathing or lack of, it has to do with existing on a continent that has had massive amounts of diseases brought from West to East and mostly East to West. Over the centuries and millennia mass amounts of disease led to immunity, of which the North Americans, being isolated, did not have. Of course being isolated they also did not benefit from the knowledge transfers that occurred throughout North Africa, Middle East, Europe and Asia.


  11. Dima DIma

    Some people don’t know there to stop with their desire to make everything equal and politically correct. Don’t touch this game at least! World has never been equal and never would.
    EU historically represents the powers. However, it does only till the point there you start playing, after choosing the starting point in history. Then it is up to you what will change. This is all about challenge – some people, who have experienced the game mechanics and know how to handle them might play for less civilized nations of the time and bring them glory. This lack of balance is that the world has, no one is the same, and in that is our equality.
    The title Europa Universalis roots back to the game which covered Europe only with few European nations to choose from. And this game is a video game variant of a board game of the same title. So it has nothing to do with Europe centrism – it is what actually happened in history. Please, keep your tolerant nature away from the best grand strategy game up to date.


  12. Eugene_Debs

    Thank you, April Daniels! It does me good to read an article like this, as a fellow passionate but critical enjoyer of the Paradox franchise. The textual assumptions of the Europa Universalis and Victoria series in particular have bothered me for a long time, for both ethical and gameplay reasons.

    Take the Westernization mechanic, as another example. As much as it is relevant to some historical cases, more often it seems to make things WAY LESS historical! Several conflicts end up being HORRIBLY modeled, because Western troops and tactics are assumed to be “obviously” superior. I’ve seen Castille invading Japan in the 17th century and steamrolling what should be, at that time, comparable or superior armies. I consistently see Portugal gobbling huge chunks of Morocco, or even annexing the entire country, by the 16th century with no apparent difficulty. In one game in which I formed and “Westernized” Malaya, practically the entire Indian subcontinent had been united under Malwa but couldn’t do shit against English invaders until I intervened. Forget the Anglo-Maratha Wars of the Anglo-Mysore Wars! In the Paradox equation, Western > Indian always! And no, in real history, Marathas and Mysoreans did not defeat the British by fielding Napoleonic Squares.

    Even the New World example, which all of these trolls seem to have very strong opinions about, is rife with ahistorical revisionist nonsense. Not in the entire period covered by the game did any European power truly integrate central North American regions like Ohio. Believe it or not, there were some really powerful indigenous polities European colonists did not want to fuck with. And there were times when the Europeans were actually driven out of territories by well-organized indigenous military action. Take the Pueblo Revolt that expelled the Spanish from Nueva Mexico after decades of settlement. Or pan-tribal actions like Tecumseh’s War. More importantly, until well into the 19th century white colonizers COULD NOT operate in the continent without negotiation and cooperation with organized indigenous polities. The Europeans didn’t simply “settle” areas and the indigenous peoples didn’t simply “submit or resist.”

    Part of what makes colonialism and genocide so horrifying is that it ISN’T “easy” or “inevitable.” Colonizers had to put in huge amounts of logistical effort, employ extremely diverse strategies, and end up failing their goals lots of times before they could “accomplish” it. Heck, even in the late 19th century, the U.S. had to basically wage total war against the Plains tribes in order to displace them. The discourse of “inevitability” was a justification, not a description of reality. But for some reason, a lot of us still believe it.

    And, ugh, the slaves as a trade good thing. -_- It’s ridiculous. I could see allowing West African states a decision to start exporting slaves or something, or even allowing coastal colonizer nations to demand slaves. But starting with slaves as a global commodity in 1444? Give me a break.


  13. Scott

    I understand and appreciate your perspective, but I am a bit confused about what you’re trying to achieve with your critique.

    The game is in the grand strategy/simulation genre. This genre of gaming has a history hundreds of years long (originating with “historical” miniatures). In any event, these games, by their nature, always portray pretty terrible things in an abstract way. For example the first modern war game, Avolon Hill’s famous Gettysburg, used little pieces of cardboard to allow people to re-fight a battle that in three days saw more American casualties than the entire Vietnam war.

    Similarly the Second World War is a favorite setting for these games, where players move their abstracted pixels around, strategically bomb cities, and generally play at a war that killed 50 million people.

    With this in mind, I really do not think that it is fair to pick on Paradox for Europa Universalis IV. The logic of your critique seems to be that any game that abstractly represents the death, destruction, and human catastrophe of history should be taboo. Yet you were fine with the parts of EUIV where you march armies across Europe raping and murdering as you go? In case you didn’t notice, the game–one that’s trying to “accurately” portray European geo-politics from 1444 to 1820–also asks you to deal with the religious strife of the reformation where you fight wars of God and force people to convert at the point of the sword.

    In addition you have to put down peasant revolts, nationalists, religious rebels and sometimes spend diplomacy to “change the culture” of provinces. When you saw this, what did you think changing the culture represented? Italians going into the Balkans and asking Serbians nicely to adopt a new language and set of traditions? Hardly. That’s European genocide against Europeans.

    But none of this bothers you? It’s the portrayal of Native Americans that somehow makes the game reprehensible to you?

    And you are not exactly being fair with your critique either. The more classically “organized” Native Americans are given their own European style nation (itself a horribly historically inaccurate abstraction). And while you can attack the natives to make colonialization faster, you are actually rewarded with better more productive colonies if you assimilate the Native population rather than murder them.

    Other critiques aren’t worth mentioning–like having slaves as a commodity–as this is an abstraction primarily born of limitations of the game engine. I mean, come on, when the game launched I think there were 7 total commodities represented globally.

    In the end, I take this for what it is… A game for history grognards; however, if you want to object because you find the subject matter taboo, that’s fine. Just at leave have courage of your convictions. Stop picking on EUIV. What you really have a problem with abstracted violence. You have a problem with war gaming and grand strategy period, not EUIV.


  14. Nate

    Just dumb comments all the way through. The world, no matter where at this time was full of war and quarrels. To the person saying “I saw Spain steamroll Japan!” Well I saw Brittany steamroll France. This is open ended, and it is extremely difficult to model and match people’s historical preferences for the entire world! Was Japan closed? Yes. Well what if I as the Netherlands want to change that, and put in considerable energy than what the Netherlands ever did historically in seizing Japan?

    The slave trade in Africa and Arabia is old, slave trading is older than the first written words. Arabs traded slaves, and blacks sold slaves long, long before 1444. Europe was a very late comer to this intercontinental slave game (of course there was plenty of it in Europe before 1444 as well).


  15. emrey

    Thanks for this, it stopped me buying the game. I’m a huge Civ fan but I had worries you wouldn’t be able to truly manipulate history with this and allow the subjugated to have a chance at winning, so I went googling for an article like this one to lay it out for me. One look at that interface of the Native American icon and their level of “aggressiveness” and I know this is not for me. How horrific.


  16. Disbethetruth

    Oh boy, if you think this is bad then you should read about the Muslim conquests and the history of the Aztecs.

    Nothing but: Blood, slaves, and slaughter. And you think white people are bad? LMFAO!

    All Chinese history is about ruthless tyrants and warlords massacring civilians.


  17. Someone who is not an idiot.

    OH MY GOD HISTORY WAS RACIST??!?!?!??!?! Of course the non-Europeans are at a disadvantage, because this game is about a realistic depiction of a time period where (wait for it) Europe had an advantage.

    “trade is only for extracting wealth from places that aren’t Europe. I haven’t played much with trying to colonize Africa. Not after I saw one of the provinces had as its trade good “slaves” with a picture of a big iron ball and chain.”

    To address that first thing about trade: What do you think the Europeans actually used it for? THE SAME THING?

    Now as for the slaves bit: What did you expect, them to be all running about a party happy and jolly with similes as they ate lots of food? Once again this game is about a REALISTIC DEPICTION OF HISTORY, not a happy version where nothing bad happens and everyone is friends. If you want that go back to a middle school history class. Also, its not just Europe who did bad stuff in history EVERYONE DID HORRIBLE THINGS. Europe just happened to get the best technology and got lucky. Also someone addressed the name of the game and stated that this game was a Euro-Centric version of Civ. To that person: Have you ever played either games for more then two seconds? Because if you had you would realize they are nothing alike and completely different in focus. Civilization focuses on history a bit but is mostly about growing a nation from the start of history to the end without going too in depth, and the big focus is on technology. EUIV is a game about shaping history, but a realistic version of history. Not a happy sunshine rainbows bollocks version of history. The fact that you idiots can’t seem to accept the fact that something is based on reality because “Its not fair to other people” is hilariously fucking stupid. Also you mention in the article some things related to the Native Americans and the way their nations are set up. Well of course they will have a hard time against Europe, that’s realistic and this game is realistic.

    To conclude: History was full of bad things, and this game is meant to be a realistic depiction of history, all of it, not just the happy stuff.


    1. Someone who is not an idiot.

      I must make a note here that the line : “To address that first thing about trade: What do you think the Europeans actually used it for? THE SAME THING?” is actually meant to be: “To address that first thing about trade: What do you think the Europeans actually used it for? THE SAME THING!”


      1. Someone who is not an idiot.

        I’d now like to respond to the person who mentioned what Europa Universalis means, and how it seems like a Euro-Centric civ game. He mentions that it means something along the lines of “Europe to the world”. This game is set in the age of colonization, where EUROPE started COLONIZING THE WORLD. So, the title fits perfectly with the game. Also I’d like to once more bring up the fact that Civ and EUIV are VERY VERY VERY different games, and by no means should be even remotely compared to each other on a critical level.


  18. Kenneth

    As an avid fan of Europa Universalis IV, I feel the need to reiterate a few points.

    Firstly, this game is about depicting the world as it is (at least, from 1444-1821). Therefore, Western Europeans have a technological advantage. However, that doesn’t mean it is impossible for other technology groups to catch up. In fact, it is rather manageable for a North American tribe to successfully defend their lands from a European invasion. Of course, as a previous comment suggested, dedication.

    Secondly, the role of Native Americans in the game has been vastly increased since the Conquest of Paradise DLC. DLCs have added many new mechanics and options for all New World nations, notably adding more nations. Missions, events and decisions for Native Americans are less diverse than that of Old World nations, simply because the missions are, partly generic and partly designed to guide the nation towards its historical route. Because we know significantly less intricate details about the history of the New World nations, it is only obvious that, for New World nations there are less events, missions and decisions based on historical events.

    Thirdly, in response to the “horrific” reactions from the “huge Civ fan” regarding the genocide of Native Americans, perhaps wider reading or, even actually playing the game, will help one realise that most games result in a manipulation of history. That is the purpose of the game; not to force players into the historical course of a nation, but to let them chose the path they want, whether they want to colonise Australia as the Mali Empire, restore the glory of the Byzantine Empire or destroy the Ming Empire as the Incas, it is all possible.

    Finally, as I stated before EU4 is about depicting history as it was, then letting the player change it. This goes for slavery as well. Slavery was an ancient practice, not just used to subjugate races, rather prisoners or the impoverished as well. Slavery was common in Arabia and Africa before the Triangle Trade began in the Atlantic. Although having colonies acquire slaves as “commodities” may seem racist, it is unfortunately accurate – for centuries slaves have been treated as commodities. If trading in slaves bothers the player, they can enact the decision to abolish slavery in their kingdom, making all provinces trading slaves find another commodity.

    Although Europa Universalis IV is certainly not the epitome of perfection, the developers have made a great deal of effort in bringing us a brilliant grand strategy game to enjoy for hours and they continue to add to it, fixing and creating where they see fit.


  19. Hystery Lesson

    “Yes, white Americans, you ARE the beneficiaries of genocide. Get used to it.”

    I am used to it. Have been for quite a while. Now can we get back to the gaming?


  20. juanfgs

    Paradox and Civilization fan here. Paradox tries to make their game a simulation within historical constraints. That’s why tech groups work the way they do. The main idea of the game is that nations develop pretty much the same way that they did in real life. Every Paradox game focuses on a different part of history, Crusader Kings is about managing a dynasty and Game of Thrones-like plots and conspiracies. EU about Europa expansionism post-renaissance. Victoria about colonialism and imperialism in the 19th century. And HoI about the second world war.

    Honestly it’s good that there is a game that let’s player experience history as it unfolded with the present changes each culture had at the time. Yeah tech groups might look unfair, but if not most games would end with China steam-rolling the map due it’s high population, and just taking away what defined the different cultures at the time and just focusing on the “positive aspects” would end up being a completely unrealistic simulation. There are also many players who enjoys being the underdog and playing as a near-impossible country ( like Maldives) becoming an empire and changing history permanently, so it also serves the purpose of presenting a challenge to seasoned players.

    If you played this game and focused on the “crimes of the white people” (because every civilization has their fair share of crimes committed), then you played it wrong, you played it narrow mindedly and biased.


  21. Your Majesty's Consort

    This was fucking hilarious. Loved it, loved it all. You’re either a madwoman or very good at playing the troll, but either way congratulations on making an innocuous little game into something “evil.” Good show!


  22. A guy on the internet

    This is ridiculous. Yes, at the beginning, natives have much worse tech, but when Europeans arrive, you can westernize. Once, as the Cherokee, I built a huge empire spanning from Georgia to California. I defeated major European powers in wars. Sure, it was more of a challenge than if I was a European country, but I liked the challenge. It was more realistic. You don’t expect the Cherokee to defeat Britain.


  23. Costa

    You can make history whatever you want it to be in EUIV. At the end of my ‘No Trail of Tears’ campaign the Cherokee fleets had undisputed control of the Atlantic, Baltic, and Mediterranean, the British Isles, Normandy, and Denmark were Cherokee colonies (along with all the Islands of the North and South Atlantic), and the Cherokee armies were unmatched on the fields of Europe having carved up France amongst European minors and put an end to the bourgeoisie revolution in Sweden; I even had control of Taiwan and part of the Philippines (taken from the Spanish who originally colonized them), I’m still waiting for the EUIV to Vic2 converter project to be finished so I can continue the campaign into the 19th century.

    If you want to take an American nation and make a world power, you can do that, if you want to conquer and colonize as a European power, you can do that too. It’s really your choice. It’s certainly harder to start as an American Indian tribe, but after the effects of European diseases, that was the position they found themselves in historically. In fact, the difficulty of the task makes it all the more satisfying when your ships can finally blockade the English Channel or when your warriors can finally march through the streets of Paris.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s