I wish GB was better

[Tarskin]

the second in the glorious revolution with the Netherlands in 1688.

I have to point out that this example is a bad example as it had nothing to do with a PU. The situation is far more complex but Willem III saw a chance to 'upgrade' from being stadholder of a state which was after extensive, sequential wars int he second half of the 17th century ,arguebly, on the edge of collapse (First anglo-dutch war, second northern war, dano-swedish war, war of devolution, franco-dutch war, third anglo-dutch war, second swedish war on bremen, second anglo-dutch war, scanian war etc.) to a country with more potential.

However, back to the OP. GB is quite strong already and its able to focus almost solely on the naval aspect (while other naval countries have to focus on army as well, such as the netherlands or spain). Therefore, I disagree on the need to change them, especially because one can not judge what effect mare notrum will have on their relative power.

 

[Haldan]

Definitely unbiased. No nationalism / internet patriotism involved whatsoever!

 

[covya]

This actually happened three times within the eu4 period, the first one being with Scotland in 1605, the second in the glorious revolution with the Netherlands in 1688 and the third in 1714 after the act of union and because of the act of settlement with the elector of Hanover. In every case, the monarch moved their seat of government to London because the power base was much stronger, even though William only wanted the PU to help him fight France and George only cared for Hanover, but parliament demanded it.

It probably would have happened in the same way had England won the hundred years war too. The monarch would probably have moved his seat of government to Paris and England would have ended up the junior partner before the end of the century.

The point I was making, is that why on earth should England receive the event? The Scottish king inherited the throne of England, not the other way around. He was James VI before he became James I. And if you're going to put in an event to buff one of the nations, Scotland needs it a hell of a lot more than England.

 

[DeftSwede]

Wow, 30 disagrees, I didn't know Great Britain garnered so much hate

Definitely unbiased. No nationalism / internet patriotism involved whatsoever!

Which part is biased, from the point at which England/Great Britain adopts the two party system after the civil war, they were only on an upward trajectory all the way up to the first world war. That's all I'm asking for. Well I'm actually asking for AI GB to be a difficult end game nation to fight in a war like France and Russia are, but they are just never that frightening

The point I was making, is that why on earth should England receive the event? The Scottish king inherited the throne of England, not the other way around. He was James VI before he became James I. And if you're going to put in an event to buff one of the nations, Scotland needs it a hell of a lot more than England.

Yeah, and I understand your point, but it is still an historical fact that when James VI of Scotland became James I of England, Scotland became the junior partner, and I wouldn't mind it going the other way either, but should probably be player driven. Just recently I was playing a Castile game where i had formed Spain and annexed Naples, then I got the cultural union event where i got offered to join the thrones of Portugal and Spain in union under Portugal, and I thought why on earth would I do that, yet the AI would probably happily accept such a choice, so I see where your coming from.

I have to point out that this example is a bad example as it had nothing to do with a PU. The situation is far more complex but Willem III saw a chance to 'upgrade' from being stadholder of a state which was after extensive, sequential wars int he second half of the 17th century ,arguebly, on the edge of collapse (First anglo-dutch war, second northern war, dano-swedish war, war of devolution, franco-dutch war, third anglo-dutch war, second swedish war on bremen, second anglo-dutch war, scanian war etc.) to a country with more potential.

However, back to the OP. GB is quite strong already and its able to focus almost solely on the naval aspect (while other naval countries have to focus on army as well, such as the netherlands or spain). Therefore, I disagree on the need to change them, especially because one can not judge what effect mare notrum will have on their relative power.

I concede that the glorious revolution was a lot more complex than I made out when i wrote that, but it worked in a similar manner to a PU and ended upon the death of William.

Yes its quite strong from that aspect and I don't want too much about GB to change, except the parliament mechanic and the way to form it without having to forcibly subjugate/annex Scotland.

 

[Grand Historian]

Why would England get the event? Scotland formed the PU over England. It was James VI of Scotland that united the crowns.

It was the same with the Iberian Wedding and the Polish Inheritance: even though it was Scotland who formed the Union, it was England that dominated it. Just because one nation 'forms' the union does not mean they automatically become the dominant partner for whatever reason.

 

[brifbates]

Which part is biased, from the point at which England/Great Britain adopts the two party system after the civil war, they were only on an upward trajectory all the way up to the first world war. That's all I'm asking for. Well I'm actually asking for AI GB to be a difficult end game nation to fight in a war like France and Russia are, but they are just never that frightening

This is entirely driven by the fact that naval power is meaningless in ai hands. As long as that remains the case, ai GB will never be a major roadblock for a player. This is actually a pretty accurate reflection of history: GB didn't actually perform all that well in ground conflicts specifically due to the problems the ai has-most specifically low manpower/army size. They were effective as a member of coalitions due to their naval strength and wealth (which was driven by the naval strength).

 

[SignedName]

I think GB should be guided to take more of India. Maybe a more powerful British East India Company. Don't know how to tell the AI to focus on taking the Indies though. Perhaps late-game missions and event chains would push it in the right direction.

 

[Xara]

Wow, 30 disagrees, I didn't know Great Britain garnered so much hate

It's not Great Britain they're disagreeing with.

 

[Swosh]

I think the development cost reduction would be a nice way to represent the industrial revolution for England. However i think it makes more sense to put the development cost reduction in their ideas instead of in a government form.

 

[Viperswhip]

I haven't played England much since the introduction of parliament, which I guess was a precursor to me not enjoying Estates, but I do play them every patch to see about winning the HYW, I guess I should do it on ironman some day to get the achievement so a few people will stop bugging me.

 

[covya]

Yeah, and I understand your point, but it is still an historical fact that when James VI of Scotland became James I of England, Scotland became the junior partner

historically, there's no such thing as a "junior partner" in a personal union. it's a game mechanic, more than it is a historical observation. Certainly, James ruled from london rather than Edinburgh, but, within the mechanics of the game, would you not also move your capital to london when playing as scotland? it's a logical decision. James wasn't the king of england, with scotland and Ireland as subject states, he was King James of Scotland, England and Ireland.

That's besides the point though, in general I do agree that there should be an event based way to form Great Britain, but I feel it should involve every independent British nation, and all should be given the choice of joining the political union, with you automatically forcing vassals and PU members. Events in general that fire and give you a personal union are a little OP in my opinion, looking at you poland and castille

 

[tman144]

Wow, 30 disagrees, I didn't know Great Britain garnered so much hate

Disagree != hate.

You got 30 disagrees because you're asking for buffs for one of the top 3 easiest nations to play. -20% dev cost AND -0.20 autonomy for a government form you can get in the 1600s? Get the fuck outta here. You're basically asking for a free revolutionary government 150 years before anyone else can get one.

 

[IdiotsOpposite]

Disagree != hate.

You got 30 disagrees because you're asking for buffs for one of the top 3 easiest nations to play. -20% dev cost AND -0.20 autonomy for a government form you can get in the 1600s? Get the fuck outta here. You're basically asking for a free revolutionary government 150 years before anyone else can get one.

Not to mention the free Diplomatic policy, AND your choice of a free Military or a free Administrative policy.

 

[Zoe1444]

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.

So this is due it a bigger problem in the game; England (and Norway but almost no one will play Norway over Denmark/Sweden) are the only nations with considerable naval morale in their national ideas. On top of that England gets 5% ship durability. This means if England picks Naval and Quality there is absolutely 0 chance anyone can stand up to England's naval might... which is really ridiculous. To remedy this, Netherlands and Portugal would be great targets to be given Naval Morale or Ship Durability to keep England from being literally unstoppable at sea. Often in MP games I find the English player able to fight a coalition of Netherlands, France, and Spain simply because even if those three nations gather their navies together, England's is just inherently incredible so they can fight a navy 3x the size of theirs.

 

[Viperswhip]

So this is due it a bigger problem in the game; England (and Norway but almost no one will play Norway over Denmark/Sweden) are the only nations with considerable naval morale in their national ideas. On top of that England gets 5% ship durability. This means if England picks Naval and Quality there is absolutely 0 chance anyone can stand up to England's naval might... which is really ridiculous. To remedy this, Netherlands and Portugal would be great targets to be given Naval Morale or Ship Durability to keep England from being literally unstoppable at sea. Often in MP games I find the English player able to fight a coalition of Netherlands, France, and Spain simply because even if those three nations gather their navies together, England's is just inherently incredible so they can fight a navy 3x the size of theirs.

But you should plan for the future, like in my games, which are not against players to be sure, I crush every navy except Ming long before they become a problem, and I keep doing that. If England wants to keep rebuilding his navy he won't be building his country, which means he will fall further and further behind economically. The short answer is, you have to deal with the problem before it becomes huge. Not easy to do, you'll have to loan it up and whatnot, but it's up to you.

 

[earlofbrigand]

They should get a colonisation bonus - esp in terms of revenues and administration bonuses. The French get a native attack reduction, but lets be honest, they were no great shakes compared to the pink map painters.