ALL ideas should give disadvantages, IMHO. In EU3 ideas were only good, but that made sense because sliders. Now without sliders, Ideas should have both good and bad to stop nations from being good at everything. That's why I liked sliders, you had to swalllow the good and the bad in order to further your goals.
Ideas weren't particularly good implemented in EU3 also. They were poorly balanced and don't determined your gameplay. Well, exept QftNW, but it was the only case. Like you don't need even single naval idea in order to beat UK. Just build many ships and zerg it. And it isn't yet clear how much current ideas would determine the manner you play the game.
If that problem is solved in the EU4, then lack of direct maluses from picking that particular idea would not matter that much. And main disadvantage from choosing one idea would be inability choose some another idea in its place. MM was tried to do something in that line, and some of their plans looked very interesting.
Very artificial to make the Burgundian inheritance inevitable. Was it already a ongoing process by 1440?
It isn't inevitable.
For all of Burgundy’s power, the ducal house had trouble producing legitimate heirs in the direct line. John the Fearless had a single son among his five children; Philip the Good had one legitimate son and two bastard; and then Charles the Bold died in battle with a sole daughter to his name. The mess of inheritance laws and dynastic politics ended with France seizing the true Duchy lands in France and the Low Countries passing to the Habsburg line as Charles’ daughter Mary took an Austrian groom.
In Europa Universalis IV, an AI controlled Burgundy may find itself with no legitimate heir. If this happens because of a regency or battle death before 1500, then Burgundy will be divided between France and the Holy Roman Emperor. (If the Emperor is weak, then those lands will go to a neighboring country that had a royal marriage with Burgundy.)
and
Burgundian National Ideas
Burgundy starts with a 25% reduction on maintenance of mercenaries and a 33% penalty on the chance of getting an heir. This is a negative national idea, but it helps to trigger the AI event chain that gets Habsburgs into Holland.
It is not yet clear, how likely it would happen. And they have some sort of justification. But I don't understand, what they implied: tough luck of burgundian dukes or that something wasn't right with Valois bloodline.
If not, then they should rather build better mechanics that will make it possible. Why just a Burgundian inheritance? Why not a Polish inheritance? Or a Portuguese Inheritance?
Well, there are some jokes, that final idea for Poland would be patritions, but they already getting old.
Why Burgundy? Because it was very important and shaped Western Europe to what we see today. Even Burgundy in MMtM wasn't that different. And it was multiple times claimed, that Burgundian Inheritance was the only historical deterministic event they find themselfs in need to keep for MMtG.
But for my opinion, Paradox with EU4 trying too hard to keep pleased all two (or even three) camps. And most likely end up pleasing no one. For ones it would be too sandboxy, for others too deterministic.
Best variant, again in my opinion, would be make separate setting for each important but unlikely to happen historical event at the game start. Like that case with Burgundy or Prussian formation. And your setting choise will determine how much the game will try to help this events to occur in your playthrough.
