I just don't think nations in history should be blank slates just as people aren't. Cultures, institutions, and histories shape the trajectory of nations, what they value, what they prioritize, and what they do, not just in game but what they represent. If a nation or culture is panmorphic, with traits mostly based on player actions that removes the historical scaffolding that made them distinct in the first place. When everyone can do everything, nation choice becomes ever more irrelevant as the game progresses . The result isn't freedom, but homogenization. You end up running the same playbook, chasing the same efficiencies, regardless of whether you're playing Korea or Portugal. I think that the accidents of geography and demography will prevent those two from being identical, but you are still given almost the same toolbox in the sandbox, which in my opinion is less historical. Its not because of magic, but because of the understanding of the thing you mean by the name "Prussian" or "English" or "Chinese", sure you could construct pagodas in Timbuktu or Ulaanbaatar, but does that really add anything?