To be blunt, not really.

The closest you'll get are some generalizations about policies of a specific empire in a specific place. France is a good example of this. Being as the French never had the numbers the British did in North America, they came to more heavily rely on Native American allies, so the game gives you bonuses for allying with Native peoples. Similarly, the Dutch can more easily produce gold, because they were a wealthy empire.

These ignore a lot of really important factors, though. Not all Native Americans were thrilled about the French, and a lot of internal social conflict arose from French efforts at conversion. The Dutch weren't so much producers of gold as carriers. Their power was in being merchants.

Other generalizations are just flat wrong. The Spanish specialize in "archaic" technology, and the player often throws lancers and armored swordsmen against lines of early nineteenth century regulars, shakos and all. It's true that in New Spain, particularly California, the Spanish relied on shields, swords, and spears, even as late as the late eighteenth century when such technologies were indeed archaic, but this was part of a more intelligent colonial policy: soldiers were charged for every round they used in an effort to prevent native Californians from obtaining gunpowder, muskets, and shot. At that, the use of cavalry gave a huge advantage over native Californians, and so there was no need to invest huge sums of money in arming the soldados de cuera (sometimes translated as "leatherjackets", meaning the garrisoned soldiers in California). This ignores EVERY OTHER PART OF THE SPANISH EMPIRE. Well equipped modern soldiers made up garrisons in Spanish Florida, Cuba, and South America.

As to the plot of the campaigns, it's not just bad, it's atrocious.