I think it's hilarious that the white guy crying about it implies that Africans are superior to Europeans because if they had the same starting chances as Europeans, they'd immediately colonize and destroy Europe.

Like if you look to a lot of the other games in the series the point is to have a historic basis but for the player to do weird shit at the same time. I ran a CK3 -> EU4 campaign where I started as Mali and united Africa and colonized Australia and the Americas and reclaimed Spain for Islam. Moving to Vic2 it just immediately acted like this giant empire greater than the UK at its peak was this backwater country with no civilization and the brits were this superpower with all these bonuses. Even trying Vic2 before that pretty much every non-white european contry feels needlessly punishing. After finally breaking in and sorta understanding Vic2 my first real attempt was in Japan where I literally sat around doing what felt like absolutely nothing and the overall feel felt nothing like Japan during the era, just waiting for technology to do something. Challenge is fun but just cutting out the legs from under you isn't. Then again these crybabies complain about CK3 improvements, like being able to have equal succession of genders or inverting it. Fun fact, it's harder when you invert the genders because women can only have so many babies at once while men can just go from woman to woman, almost like the entire system was designed in a severely patriarchal way and playing around in an inverted world shows some of the limits of that kind of world, but also that in equal succession you have better options overall.

Why play these games if you don't have at least some understanding of the literal history you purport to claim you love? It's being made more accurate to history rather than less.