I wish GB was better

[DeftSwede]

I posted a thread a while ago about GB being weaker than their historical counterpart and got shouted down at England being OP. But the point I was trying to convey, was that England can be as weak as Ryukyu, as long as GB is a wrecking ball. Now you may not agree with me on this, but i think a few things should change regarding ideas, events and government form.

Firstly, I think GB should get their own ideas, because in the case that Scotland or Wales (also could rename Wales as Cymru) would form GB their ideas are completely awful for the GB's situation. This would also mean a decoupling of English and British ideas and a complete overhaul on all the idea groups in the British isles. And that way, you can make England's ideas worse, while making GB's a whole lot better. Will post later on what they could be. Also move the choice to form GB until admin tech 20 which should be around 1670.

Also during gameplay, England will never gain a PU over Scotland, since both desire each others lands and are usually hostile to one another, which is historically accurate but damages any chance of the AI diplomatically forming Britain as happened in history. What I suggest is an event that will happen to give England a PU over Scotland and puts a Stuart/Scottish monarch on the throne of England, which will occur if England is protestant and has an Queen with no heir. Let's call it the virgin queen event.

Then we have the English civil war, which results in the government in it's current format as we have today. But in gameplay it doesn't work quite like that. I'd suggest that after the civil war is over a new government form should be available; British monarchy. The government would have a -20% development cost -0.20 autonomy change and 1 free diplomatic policy. It will also be immune to the revolution and cannot be switched from. This would dissolve parliament and be replaced with two factions; Whigs and Tory's. Whigs would be the military focus type, reducing monthly war exhaustion, reducing mercenary maintenance and providing 1 free military policy when in power. Conversely the Tory's were the administrators, so they should provide stability cost reduction, yearly legitimacy and 1 free admin policy.

This is mainly because the parliament mechanic is so awful to use, when it and the industrial revolution was really the reason behind GB's rise to superpower beginning with the English civil war.

 

[BBMorti]

It might be a bit of a stretch to argue England can be as weak as Ryukyu..

 

[aqvamare]

UK is one of the strongest multiplayer nations, and from 1715+ on the only nation who can win every war possible, thx to trade war and blockading ports.

 

[DeftSwede]

Yeah, I was only emphasizing a point of what people had said to me earlier about England and it being overpowered, which is true, but in order for GB to be better, I think England has to get worse.

I don't play multiplayer, so I wouldn't know, but that is from my perspective of leaving France alone.

 

[Irishcheetah]

England is fairly strong and even more so, considering they can get a PU over France and that makes them the biggest nation right beside the ottomans. England is also basically getting buffed in the next patch as well, as Ireland is getting more provinces.

I do agree with your idea about the virgin queen event, that would be awesome. Spain has one with Aragon, so why does England not get one for Scotland.. In any case, getting an English queen is quite rare, so the event would also be fairly rare, but it's nice to have.

Also i agree with parliament being awful, it's poorly represented and boring and was even worse before the last patch due to the amount of seats you had to give away.

 

[Aquae Sulis]

You can state all your blockades and trade wars but the fact is the path to EU dominance is military might and military numbers.

England has neither - which is alright, because historically it sort of had neither.

But in EU4 terms that significantly diminishes its influence (especially coupled with poor military crossing AI).

Now England/GB isn't weak but the path it took to dominance (industrial and naval) aren't effective play styles in EU4.

I wish they were, and they might do eventually, because it offers another play style and another challenge in the late game.

To summarise, GB didn't come to dominate global politics because it had more soldiers or gathered more land from its neighbours, because it didn't. But EU4 has no alternative mechanism to obtain power and so the player is shoehorned into following that route. That just means GBs shortcomings are drawn into even sharper focus.

 

[sister of the khan]

Since the next dlc is partly focused on the navy, I think they it will impact Britain in a huge way because that was always their strength.

In terms of Parliament, I think it would be nice if there were events throughout the game about the struggle between King and Parliament, where promoting the Parliament's interests gives you temporary rewards but long-term negatives, whereas the opposite would also be true. Of course, if you go too far too fast, than you end up with a civil war on your hands...

 

[Dnote]

I agree England can be very strong, but Great Britain does feel fairly weak in comparison to other nations late game. I attribute some of this though to the weakened state of the New World now.

Since development came into play, the New World just hasn't been as much of a boost to the parent nation as it once was. I generally find it better to secure Africa/Asia than colonise the New World now.

 

[theDisto]

England is fairly strong and even more so, considering they can get a PU over France and that makes them the biggest nation right beside the ottomans. England is also basically getting buffed in the next patch as well, as Ireland is getting more provinces.

That mission has become much rarer and more difficult to trigger ever since they integrated the various French vassals. Now they have a higher force limit than you, and you need both higher cavalry and infantry, and if they gain more than 3 additional provinces, you have to expand to match. Now it is easy for an experienced player to win the 100 years war due to the change to the starting situation. However to trigger the mission you need to neither be at war or at truce. Now if you take France down a notch, they get dog piled by Aragon/Castile/Burgundy (the latter who is also much stronger) and France barely exists afterwards.

Honestly I preferred the England with the random War of the Roses and being thrown into immediate war with the French. A war you probably weren't going to win. I haven't really played England since the changes, although I have played many multiplayer games where I have put new players in as England, and told them to look out for the mission.

I was actually remarking yesterday when talking about Scotland, which I have favoured over the English (and murdering the English), that there really should be an event for putting a Stuart on the English throne. The rise of the Stuarts in England is an part of history completely devoid from the game.

 

[Galaahd]

The government would have a -20% development cost -0.20 autonomy change and 1 diplomatic policy. It will also be immune to the revolution and cannot be switched from.

Seems a bit underpowered. Why not add +30& discipline and -20% tech cost reduction to it?

 

[Sneering Imperialist]

It might be a bit of a stretch to argue England can be as weak as Ryukyu..

Sure, but that isn't what he said. he said:

But the point I was trying to convey, was that England can be as weak as Ryukyu, as long as GB is a wrecking ball.

Which is not the same. He is saying that he doesn't care how weak England is/becomes, as long as Great Britain is powerful (as it was historically). Just thought I'd point that out.

 

[DeftSwede]

Seems a bit underpowered. Why not add +30& discipline and -20% tech cost reduction to it?

Errr, what?

The development is to mirror the industrial revolution which technically began around 1750 and since GB has no development bonuses, this seemed like an oversight

 

[Renen]

Errr, what?

The development is to mirror the industrial revolution which technically began around 1750 and since GB has no development bonuses, this seemed like an oversight

I think he was being sarcastic

 

[DeftSwede]

I think he was being sarcastic

Yeah, I got that

 

[brifbates]

I think he was being sarcastic

And rightfully so, that suggestion is ridiculously OP. -20% dev cost and a free mp/month? Name any other government form that comes even close to that level of silly then factor in the complete lack of drawbacks suggested. And that is ignoring the faction proposals and high autonomy reduction.

 

[DeftSwede]

And rightfully so, that suggestion is ridiculously OP. -20% dev cost and a free mp/month? Name any other government form that comes even close to that level of silly then factor in the complete lack of drawbacks suggested. And that is ignoring the faction proposals and high autonomy reduction.

Well, i was simply illustrating my opinion on how the industrial revolution in Great Britain during the 18th century could be implemented in game. Seriously though, how else can you mirror it? Prussia's ideas are all based on their 18th century military and Sweden's are all based around their's in the 17th.

With respect to the free diplo policy, I came up with that idea a) because diplomatic monarch points SHOULD be the most important to GB and its not a direct free mp/month b) parliament is utter tripe and could be applied to constitutional monarchy/republic governments in general, with any 1 policy choice to be free c) because at the point GB comes into being in history, the monarch no longer controls the country and appoints the ministers of the leading party(faction system) to rule. This was my way of a check that GB doesn't fall behind if they get some god awful 1/0/2 ruler that I always seem to get when I play as them.

I don't think it is such a stupid suggestion, especially since the British government is entirely unique for the time period (until USA turns up). It is this system which allowed the UK to function in such a way that allowed them to become one of the most important nations on the political scale in Europe. But even then constitutional monarchy is technically incorrect, since UK doesn't have one. In fact I believe they are the only democracy in the world without one. But that is merely semantics.

I'm sorry if you think that's OP, but shouldn't Great Britain be OP if we super nerf England and since they were so historically.

 

[Xara]

Well, i was simply illustrating my opinion on how the industrial revolution in Great Britain during the 18th century could be implemented in game. Seriously though, how else can you mirror it? Prussia's ideas are all based on their 18th century military and Sweden's are all based around their's in the 17th.

This is alternative history. Why do you insist that Great Britain has to be the location that experiences the industrial revolution in every game? Maybe my glorious Palatinate Germany is the place that should experience it in my campaign. Maybe a Novgorodian Empire of another player is the place that should experience it.

Your suggestion is flat-out railroading and terribly balanced.

 

[gaius valerius]

I think GB is just fine in terms of set-up, what is not fine is that the AI can't do anything with it. While England as a naval power was not written in the stars, it had several advantages pushing it in that direction. For starters it was of course part of the British Isles. Islands. Water everywhere. The strenght of England/G-B was her eventual ability to project power across the seas with seeming impunity. EU IV simply does not compute this part. Naval what? Naval who? It's just a joke.

Now maybe the upcoming "Mare Nostrum" DLC will fix that... wait and see before I believe any of that though.

Even this premises is faulty since this power could not have even evolved in such a way without Parliament taking hold of the reigns of government as it did after the Glorious Revolution. The REAL strenght of England/G-B was her unparallelled power to tap into the financial resources of her country. While France was struggling with the glaring issues of her fiscal sinkholes like the gabelle England modelled her finances in a completely different way. Enabling unparalleled financial sacrifices on behalf of the nation. Only the Dutch Republic had done this before them, showing the most astonishing financial resilience throughout the 80 Years War and beyond. The problem for the latter was although it had a dwarf facing giants for over a century, it was still a dwarf at the end of the day - time thus being against her. Eventually, after the initial clashes Dutch interests neatly aligned with that of G-B, causing them to heavily invest in the English/British financial market after the Glorious revolution.

Regardless this doesn't matter at all, since this is specifically the item that EU IV does NOT at all simulate. There is no way this game could simulate how Philips II had his Spanish Empire go through consecutive bankruptcies and still hold it together. This game cannot do it. This game does not have to do it (I'd want it to though haha).

What it does need to do is fix naval AI XD

 

[DeftSwede]

This is alternative history. Why do you insist that Great Britain has to be the location that experiences the industrial revolution in every game? Maybe my glorious Palatinate Germany is the place that should experience it in my campaign. Maybe a Novgorodian Empire of another player is the place that should experience it.

Your suggestion is flat-out railroading and terribly balanced.

I made a lot of suggestions, you don't like any of them?
Ok, I can see that the industrial revolution could be spread out a bit more amongst western nations, but since it took place in Britain historically, I was placing it there and under that Government format because the rest of the world didn't start to catch up until during the Nepoleonic period.

But my main issues of the post were:-
- game doesn't reflect England-Scotland relationship
- parliaments are awful, but this was my way of sorting out Britain's one
I'm open to suggestions of how else to improve parliaments?

 

[gaius valerius]

The reasons why the Industrial Revolution happened in G-B are not at all simulated in this game. Development hardly serves as an explanatory factor. In se the argument is as arbitrary as it gets.