"Everyone has a special unit"? Do I need to say that only a few, very few, extremely few, too few, nations in game have special units? Ottomen, Cossack stuff, Indian Rajputs, Manchu banners... Russians have two, Cossacks and Streltzy. While most most most nations get NONE. Yes, we DO NEED MORE SPECIAL UNITS for new countries. We demand a fair share in special units. Scotland, also... erm... Spanish tercios, Persian Qizilbash cavalry, etc.
What I said was that if we keep adding special units to everyone, then it really isn't special anymore, like I said, there's only so many times a unit that gets an extra +10% Shock Damage or whatever is going to be special, units only have a certain amount of modifiers and only a select few of those are considered good. If Scotland gets a special unit of +10% Shock Damage to represent Highland troops, but then they go and fight somebody else who happens to have +10% Shock Damage, it's just not special. For me, ideally only the majors/great powers of history and select few famous kingdoms, such as Prussia, deserve special units. Scotland just doesn't do much during EU IV's time except try to survive against England and giving them special units that will most likely hurt their already fragile economy even more is not the best. That's why I think a starting tradition of Shock Damage, be it +10%, +15% or whatever, would work much better. Scotland is just one of those countries that don't deserve as much detail and attention compared to a country such as England or France. They don't need a special unit.
I also came with the idea of granting France a special Scottish mercenary unit, cheap and strong, as long as they're allied to Scotland/high relations. That would make sense too, right?
I'd rather see French Musketeers be a unique unit
Hijacking the thread, but has anyone mentioned a Union of the Crowns event? I complained about that and a few issues with Scotland and its plainness a few months ago, but it did not attract much attention.
Edit: Grammar.
Yeah it's frustrating that there's no event for England and Scotland to unite, I'm perfectly fine with the argument they say of "the king went straight to London so England deserves to be the senior partner", but the event needs to be in the game, especially when other union events are, such as Castile and Aragon or Brandenburg and Prussia. I think the event requirements should be that England has no heir, has a royal marriage with Scotland and the ruler has died, should trigger an event, maybe limit it to happen after 1500 or something or maybe England at least has to complete the War of the Roses mission, and then England gets a choice between taking the Scottish king/queen, a English king, and maybe another option or two, I wouldn't know what works best, just to give England some choices each with pros and cons so people don't rush for Scottish union depending on how they want to do in their game and how it has gone up until the event.
I would love to not have to go into Scotland as England and waste manpower in the Highlands
