No problem, just trying to help make a great mod better.
Besides I want to see an Irish Britain just to spite them.
Besides I want to see an Irish Britain just to spite them.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Ghaeraidh is the Gaelic form of Carrick, a kind of vessel.
Toibin is a place in Eire which I elaborated on in one of the events.
Toibin is a place in Eire which I elaborated on in one of the events.
mandead said:Well, it's up to you of course. This is why I try and not stray too far from history with alt. history sequences - you end up with a load of BS.
Everyone has their own idea of what constitutes BS.
Some people might think the non-horiginal-outcome options given in AGCEEP events (typcially action_b) is BS. Not me, but I can see whay they might think that. I think it's a matter of how expansive once sense of possibility is.
I think Eire forming some sort of Gaelic union is quite a cool idea, perhaps spawned by the want to protect its similarly minded brothers in The Highlands when Scotland has it's revolts? (or want the want for an excuse to gain land anyway )
I can't think of why Eire would form a Britannia though, it seems like a strange idea to me, but I'm sure some clever person can come up with a wonderful story if they wish.
I think Scotland forming a Britannia sounds all right as it may share cultures with the Southerners. Perhaps Wessex or York too, but because of the need to subjugate the Scottish?
I'm just brainstorming.o
)I can't think of why Eire would form a Britannia though, it seems like a strange idea to me, but I'm sure some clever person can come up with a wonderful story if they wish.
I think Scotland forming a Britannia sounds all right as it may share cultures with the Southerners. Perhaps Wessex or York too, but because of the need to subjugate the Scottish?
I'm just brainstorming.
o
Well, quite.MattyG said:
However, I think the AGCEEP's typical action_b is somewhat more plausible. After all, they represent an immediate - and usually obvious - alternative to an historical situation. Most if not all of Interregnum's content is complete fantasy, so the BS threshold is certainly closer to you.
Not that it's a bad mod, of course - quite the opposite; my point is simply that reality is left much further behind.
I agree with everything you've said in the thread besides this. Etymological accuracy should be prized. But your font is eye-watering.mandead said:
I think a problem is that there are few Historians to give directions on this mod compared to others causing very unlikely actions. One must recognise that small changes in the past can hugely change the future though.
Well, at least now one knows where one stands.Petrarca said:I agree with everything you've said in the thread besides this. Etymological accuracy should be prized. But your font is eye-watering.
o
Well Eire and Wales start off as allies correct? So a Welsh King marries off his daughter to a Irish Prince (It's the O'Briens that are favoured in Interregnum right? (A pox on them)), fully expecting his young and virile self to be able to pop off a couple more of the screaming brats. Some grey hair and a nagging old wife later, proves him wrong and he casually decides he would like to kick the bucket around this time.Duckett said:I think Eire forming some sort of Gaelic union is quite a cool idea, perhaps spawned by the want to protect its similarly minded brothers in The Highlands when Scotland has it's revolts? (or want the want for an excuse to gain land anyway
I can't think of why Eire would form a Britannia though, it seems like a strange idea to me, but I'm sure some clever person can come up with a wonderful story if they wish.
Well Prince Patrick, son of Patrick, King of Ireland, decides it's high time to claim the throne in his young son's name (Also Patrick). Great and mighty Scotia decides to look on this move unfavourably, preferring for the Welsh to elect a King from the local nobles (Or some move of such) to keep the balance of power in the area.
Scotland and Ireland start a shouting match, which no one will win, and Ireland decides to enforce her claim with her wooden boot. A landing party in Wales (+10,000 Infantry + 4000 Cavalry) set up in shop, and Scotland begins to move her troops around, to crack merry old Eire in the jaw.
War breaks loose, York can choose to side with her master or have no part in what is viewed by much of the outside world as an unjust war. Maybe a break free option? Wessex remembers she is part of the island and can decide if she wants to help Ireland, likelier as she will want to snub Scotland for earlier, help Scotland not as likely but they may want to keep the balance of power too, or say screw them all, rise Britannia.
Ireland wins if Wales is free from Scottish hands (Or Wessex if they join against Eire) and they control Northumberland, Lancashire and Lothian. If York joined in and they control Yorkshire, they gain them as vassals. Scotland loses Lancashire to Eire.
Alternatively if Scotland wins (Controls all of Wales, maybe throw in Ulster just to show the Irish the Scots can and will kick their asses should it come to it?) They will gain an alliance with Wales, it will set off a new line of kings from the "local nobles" line.
If paradoxically Wessex fights both and wins (Controls Wales, and everything up Lothian) she can gain it all (Cept for Wales proper anyways.) (Fair bit of BB, but as most of it was once it's anyways so not a ton). We can toss in "Revival of England" events that allow York to join and have a revolt in London.
[/War of Welsh Succession Sequence]
[War of Supremacy]
mandead said:Well, quite.
However, I think the AGCEEP's typical action_b is somewhat more plausible. After all, they represent an immediate - and usually obvious - alternative to an historical situation. Most if not all of Interregnum's content is complete fantasy, so the BS threshold is certainly closer to you.
Not that it's a bad mod, of course - quite the opposite; my point is simply that reality is left much further behind.
Respectifully, I think the AGCEEP (and all other historically-based mods) are on the same BS level as Interregnum.
The AGCEEP takes relatively little account of the effects of actions, and proceeds with a scripted series of events as though the past does not happen. Yes there are action_bs and sometimes follow-up events to this, and yes in some sequences the scripters have tried to be careful and provide their idea of believeable options and outcomes, but this does not change the fact that if Spain had not formed and Granada conquered Iberia this would have been HUGE in terms of European and world history and the AGCEEP does not consider it. This is only one example or the millions of tiny causes-and-effects.
But, is there really any believeability difference between imagining a different script and sticking to a script that takes (virtually) no account of actions? Not to me.
The AGCEEP is a great mod. But acusations of 'BS' are not merely one of perspective, or preference. ALL of these games are fanstasy history as soon as you hit the PLAY button, so get over your sense of superior historical accuracy.
Avalanchemike said:Well Eire and Wales start off as allies correct? So a Welsh King marries off his daughter to a Irish Prince (It's the O'Briens that are favoured in Interregnum right? (A pox on them)), fully expecting his young and virile self to be able to pop off a couple more of the screaming brats. Some grey hair and a nagging old wife later, proves him wrong and he casually decides he would like to kick the bucket around this time.
Well Prince Patrick, son of Patrick, King of Ireland, decides it's high time to claim the throne in his young son's name (Also Patrick). Great and mighty Scotia decides to look on this move unfavourably, preferring for the Welsh to elect a King from the local nobles (Or some move of such) to keep the balance of power in the area.
Scotland and Ireland start a shouting match, which no one will win, and Ireland decides to enforce her claim with her wooden boot. A landing party in Wales (+10,000 Infantry + 4000 Cavalry) set up in shop, and Scotland begins to move her troops around, to crack merry old Eire in the jaw.
War breaks loose, York can choose to side with her master or have no part in what is viewed by much of the outside world as an unjust war. Maybe a break free option? Wessex remembers she is part of the island and can decide if she wants to help Ireland, likelier as she will want to snub Scotland for earlier, help Scotland not as likely but they may want to keep the balance of power too, or say screw them all, rise Britannia.
Ireland wins if Wales is free from Scottish hands (Or Wessex if they join against Eire) and they control Northumberland, Lancashire and Lothian. If York joined in and they control Yorkshire, they gain them as vassals. Scotland loses Lancashire to Eire.
Alternatively if Scotland wins (Controls all of Wales, maybe throw in Ulster just to show the Irish the Scots can and will kick their asses should it come to it?) They will gain an alliance with Wales, it will set off a new line of kings from the "local nobles" line.
If paradoxically Wessex fights both and wins (Controls Wales, and everything up Lothian) she can gain it all (Cept for Wales proper anyways.) (Fair bit of BB, but as most of it was once it's anyways so not a ton). We can toss in "Revival of England" events that allow York to join and have a revolt in London.
[/War of Welsh Succession Sequence]
[War of Supremacy]
OK, first, have you read the files? There is already a Welsh Succession criris, so I am assuming here that you either want to expand on that or ditch it in favour of this scenario.
I am not sure I fully follow the premise, but it seems to suggest that the Ard Ruire is exerting a 'claim' in Wales. Would this make sense, given that title in Eire is not hereditary, but elected? I'm not saying it wouldn't be possible, but we'd need to acknowledge that to many back in Eire this would be a family thing, not a Eire thing. Moreover, if this family was successful in getting its claims to the Welsh throne accepted, this would not translate into anything back in Eire. Well, not necessarily, but election to Ard Ruire relies heavily on prestige and wealth and this would add considerably to the family's psoition in this matter.
I like the general idea of the succession crisis, though, and likely the existing event chain isn't well-enough fleshed out. Partly because I remember being leary of getting ither Scotland or ire too beeply entangled in a conflict when the ai had colonizing and Norway, respectively, to worry about. Giving the ai two separate crises to deal with is tantamount to ensuring it fails at both.
Last edited:
MattyG said:
:rofl:MattyG said:...so get over your sense of superior historical accuracy.
I knew there was a reason for it.
It's not about being superior; the designs are completely different from the ground up, and I really don't understand your argument that these two mods in particular are on an equal footing in terms of historical accuracy (which, as you say, takes a back seat from the word 'go') - that struck me as a rather bizarre comment given the very nature of Interregnum.
Nonetheless, I shall test drive the latest version when I have time.
Then I will try to find another way of explaining it.
AGCEEP is the most historically accurate mod on January 1, 1419.
After that point everything becomes varying degrees of improbable, because it presumes that world history unfolds in more-or-less the same way no matter what happens. This is fantasy, because it take little account of actions and their effects. How can it, of course.
This is not a criticism. What can we really hope to acheive with a game? We can't program it to generate all possible futures and outcomes.
Interregnum is no different, its just that the departure point for its history is back in 1240 (ish) and it does try to think up a few storylines and alternative outcomes.
Neither mod is a 'fantasy', both involve varying degrees of improbability and probability. As Interregnum begins in the 1200s it has an exponentially great degree of improbability, but this does not translate to AGCEEP being more historically accurate, just more probable of being ... probable!
I just wrote that on the fly XD
Couldn't we come up with a Jenkin's ear for it though? While I don't think Irish nobles would care if the O'Briens were trying to exert a claim in Cymru, I could easily see them getting riled up over an insult to the people as a whole.
Leave it as a second option for both parties perhaps? More of a players thing than a AI one.
Couldn't we come up with a Jenkin's ear for it though? While I don't think Irish nobles would care if the O'Briens were trying to exert a claim in Cymru, I could easily see them getting riled up over an insult to the people as a whole.
Leave it as a second option for both parties perhaps? More of a players thing than a AI one.
Reading this thread, there seems to be few gameplay differences between England, Britannia, and Alba/Albion.
England owns the south of the British Isle, fights Scotland and Eire, and colonizes.
Britannia owns the the south and the north of the British Isle, fights Eire, and colonizes.
Alba/Albion owns Ireland and north of the British Isle, fights England, and colonizes.
Essentially, they differ in which parts of Britain they own, and who their natural opponents are.
My proposal is to give them different gameplay roles. Alba/Albion seems to be talked about as a cultural state mostly. I would therefore limit them to the Gaelic provinces in Ireland and Scotland, and not give them Inglis as a culture. Maybe have a few random events that make holding on to Inglis provinces annoying (revolts every once in a while, losing TCs, that sort of thing). Alba would be a Gaelic super-state. It could then replace Scotland and Ireland as a North American colonizer.
Event sequences for Alba could involve influence conflicts with Brittany over Southern England preventing it from creating Britannia. We could have the various English minors and Cymru switching allegiances between the two powers, with Alba getting good events for keeping the English minors vassalized (Mercenaries, gold, colonists, etc).
Problems - it seems too similar to an Eire that diplo-annexed Scotland, or vice versa.
Britannia seems to be a regional power from this conversation. I imagine it be more land and militarily focused. Have it be a path available to Brittany (if they give up France) and the English minors (and possibly Cymru). Brittany forms Britannia by conquering a certain amount of English provinces, while the English minors can form it by controlling certain key provinces and defeating Brittany.
It's role is as an angry, militant thorn in the side of Scotland/Alba, Eire, and France. The real world analogue would probably be the Ottomans, except on a smaller scale. Every so often, they could get a few cores on France and the British Isles to keep them conquering. In the current version of Interregnum, the British Isles are very peaceful, leaving Eire to run away with the colonization game, and the presence of Britannia would make it a bit more chaotic, giving Eire a choice between 'keeping order' on the British Isles at the expense of their colonial program, or letting Britannia run rampant, but damaging Eire's chances of forming Alba and giving it a strong, warlike neighbor.
As far as event sequences go, there could be wars with France or French minors over territorial claims, wars with Scotland over Inglis provinces, Irish intervention in Britannia's wars against Scotland or Cymru, and so on.
Current problems - large variety of cultures in the territory that Britannia would hold, and a large variety in the primary cultures of those that can form it (Breton, Inglis, Anglosaxon, and possibly Cymric). Also, if France and/or Alba do not form, Britannia could come to dominate both regions, which goes against Interregnum's anti-blob mission.
Finally, England. England as it currently stands is just a re-creation of the vanilla England, except neutered by the stronger Scotland and Eire. Here is where I draw a blank. The British Isles have very few interesting roles left that aren't already filled by the currently existing states. One possibility is for it to be the equivalent of the real world Netherlands - a small trading state on the eastern side of Britain, competing with the Hansa over the Baltic trade.
Possible events could be alliances with Denmark or Finland against the Hansa and the Union of Kalmar. Also, maybe they could be the Interregnum world's bankers, bankrolling Irish colonial adventures and Teutonic and Iberian crusades in exchange for trade concessions. (Decrease taxes in the lands taken by the crusade and increase them in the English capital. Undo all of those changes if someone other than England conquers the English capital.)
Problems - there is little room for England if both Alba and Britannia form. As listed in the Alba section, it probably doesn't want the provinces themselves, but would resent such a centralized and rich entity in an area they consider their sphere of influence. There could be an event sequence about that conflict though.
Britannia on the other hand, will probably want at least the western English provinces. There could be an event sequence about Britanno-Albonic(?) conflicts over England though, with the possibility of England choosing either side. (Siding with Scotland or Alba will probably involve gains in western England at the cost of vassalage to Scotland/Alba, while siding with Britannia will involve secession of the western territories in exchange for some Scottish land.)
Finally, England faces the same cultural can of worms as Britannia does, though to a lesser extent. I would give them a choice between Anglosaxon and Inglis as a primary culture, a period of a century or so to get their trade up and running, and then give them the option of losing their chosen 'minority' culture, or keeping it at the expense of centralization and some tax-value. Some limited cultural conversions also do not seem out of place.
Anyway, I am moderately busy today and tomorrow, but I can do some basic events for this by Tuesday or Wednesday, and test out how it works.
England owns the south of the British Isle, fights Scotland and Eire, and colonizes.
Britannia owns the the south and the north of the British Isle, fights Eire, and colonizes.
Alba/Albion owns Ireland and north of the British Isle, fights England, and colonizes.
Essentially, they differ in which parts of Britain they own, and who their natural opponents are.
My proposal is to give them different gameplay roles. Alba/Albion seems to be talked about as a cultural state mostly. I would therefore limit them to the Gaelic provinces in Ireland and Scotland, and not give them Inglis as a culture. Maybe have a few random events that make holding on to Inglis provinces annoying (revolts every once in a while, losing TCs, that sort of thing). Alba would be a Gaelic super-state. It could then replace Scotland and Ireland as a North American colonizer.
Event sequences for Alba could involve influence conflicts with Brittany over Southern England preventing it from creating Britannia. We could have the various English minors and Cymru switching allegiances between the two powers, with Alba getting good events for keeping the English minors vassalized (Mercenaries, gold, colonists, etc).
Problems - it seems too similar to an Eire that diplo-annexed Scotland, or vice versa.
Britannia seems to be a regional power from this conversation. I imagine it be more land and militarily focused. Have it be a path available to Brittany (if they give up France) and the English minors (and possibly Cymru). Brittany forms Britannia by conquering a certain amount of English provinces, while the English minors can form it by controlling certain key provinces and defeating Brittany.
It's role is as an angry, militant thorn in the side of Scotland/Alba, Eire, and France. The real world analogue would probably be the Ottomans, except on a smaller scale. Every so often, they could get a few cores on France and the British Isles to keep them conquering. In the current version of Interregnum, the British Isles are very peaceful, leaving Eire to run away with the colonization game, and the presence of Britannia would make it a bit more chaotic, giving Eire a choice between 'keeping order' on the British Isles at the expense of their colonial program, or letting Britannia run rampant, but damaging Eire's chances of forming Alba and giving it a strong, warlike neighbor.
As far as event sequences go, there could be wars with France or French minors over territorial claims, wars with Scotland over Inglis provinces, Irish intervention in Britannia's wars against Scotland or Cymru, and so on.
Current problems - large variety of cultures in the territory that Britannia would hold, and a large variety in the primary cultures of those that can form it (Breton, Inglis, Anglosaxon, and possibly Cymric). Also, if France and/or Alba do not form, Britannia could come to dominate both regions, which goes against Interregnum's anti-blob mission.
Finally, England. England as it currently stands is just a re-creation of the vanilla England, except neutered by the stronger Scotland and Eire. Here is where I draw a blank. The British Isles have very few interesting roles left that aren't already filled by the currently existing states. One possibility is for it to be the equivalent of the real world Netherlands - a small trading state on the eastern side of Britain, competing with the Hansa over the Baltic trade.
Possible events could be alliances with Denmark or Finland against the Hansa and the Union of Kalmar. Also, maybe they could be the Interregnum world's bankers, bankrolling Irish colonial adventures and Teutonic and Iberian crusades in exchange for trade concessions. (Decrease taxes in the lands taken by the crusade and increase them in the English capital. Undo all of those changes if someone other than England conquers the English capital.)
Problems - there is little room for England if both Alba and Britannia form. As listed in the Alba section, it probably doesn't want the provinces themselves, but would resent such a centralized and rich entity in an area they consider their sphere of influence. There could be an event sequence about that conflict though.
Britannia on the other hand, will probably want at least the western English provinces. There could be an event sequence about Britanno-Albonic(?) conflicts over England though, with the possibility of England choosing either side. (Siding with Scotland or Alba will probably involve gains in western England at the cost of vassalage to Scotland/Alba, while siding with Britannia will involve secession of the western territories in exchange for some Scottish land.)
Finally, England faces the same cultural can of worms as Britannia does, though to a lesser extent. I would give them a choice between Anglosaxon and Inglis as a primary culture, a period of a century or so to get their trade up and running, and then give them the option of losing their chosen 'minority' culture, or keeping it at the expense of centralization and some tax-value. Some limited cultural conversions also do not seem out of place.
Anyway, I am moderately busy today and tomorrow, but I can do some basic events for this by Tuesday or Wednesday, and test out how it works.
Last edited:
Okay, having done some research (a few hands-off games until 1600) it appears that if Brittany makes some conquests in England, or diplo-annexes Wessex it ends up being almost exactly what I described in the Britannia section.
On the other hand, if Brittany doesn't make an effort in England, the entire region pretty much falls to Scotland, since they inherit York and face little to no opposition from Wessex.
While Britanny's expansion in England is mostly fine, Scotland tends to own almost all of the British Isle by 1600 (Minus Anglia and Cornwall). This essentially makes them identical to vanilla England, except without pesky northern neighbors to keep them busy.
My proposal is therefore to use these creatable kingdoms as a barrier to Scottish expansion, as well as to give various players in the region some interesting choices.
If Scotland conquers too much of England, it triggers an intervention event for Brittany. Likewise, if Brittany is too strong in England, Scotland gets an intervention event. If after the intervention they are at peace, and neither side has won a decisive victory, they agree to create a buffer state - Britannia - in South-Western England to stem further conflicts.
On the other hand, if Brittany doesn't make an effort in England, the entire region pretty much falls to Scotland, since they inherit York and face little to no opposition from Wessex.
While Britanny's expansion in England is mostly fine, Scotland tends to own almost all of the British Isle by 1600 (Minus Anglia and Cornwall). This essentially makes them identical to vanilla England, except without pesky northern neighbors to keep them busy.
My proposal is therefore to use these creatable kingdoms as a barrier to Scottish expansion, as well as to give various players in the region some interesting choices.
If Scotland conquers too much of England, it triggers an intervention event for Brittany. Likewise, if Brittany is too strong in England, Scotland gets an intervention event. If after the intervention they are at peace, and neither side has won a decisive victory, they agree to create a buffer state - Britannia - in South-Western England to stem further conflicts.
That's brilliant! I really do like the idea of Britannia being similar to the Ottoman Empire too; another coloniser would be a tad dull. Perhaps regional countries such as Cymru or even Cornwall or York could vote to be a part of this buffer state, being under threat from either side? Is this sort of thing possible to code?
I think having Britannia form through the 'historical' route of the game (as in what is expected to happen) would make the region much, much more interesting, especially for the Scottish player.
I think having Britannia form through the 'historical' route of the game (as in what is expected to happen) would make the region much, much more interesting, especially for the Scottish player.
One problem would be that the idea behind Brittania was a unification of the British Isles- so why would it be used as a buffer state consisting of rump-England?
Note also that Scotland would be able to form Brittania, atleast if they go for the York route and the southernly path that entails.
Note also that Scotland would be able to form Brittania, atleast if they go for the York route and the southernly path that entails.
Ideas can change.
Perhaps the buffer state, if it is successful, will go on to conquer Scotland in a continued aggression?
I think Scotland needn't form a Britannia, it usually controls most of the island anyway... Though I do see your point, and it would be nice to see Scotland do something extravagant (I mean, other than sometimes controlling Norway ).
Perhaps the buffer state, if it is successful, will go on to conquer Scotland in a continued aggression?
I think Scotland needn't form a Britannia, it usually controls most of the island anyway... Though I do see your point, and it would be nice to see Scotland do something extravagant (I mean, other than sometimes controlling Norway
).
Scotland controlling most of the island would be the impetus for them to form Brittania- that is to say, the state that is of Britain, and controls most of the Isle, would become Brittania, in a manner somewhat similar to OTL's Kingdom of Great Britain, altough with a different Union of Crowns (IE, probably just claiming the other crown after having subjugated London/Edinburough), and a tag-change to mark it.Duckett said:Ideas can change.
Perhaps the buffer state, if it is successful, will go on to conquer Scotland in a continued aggression?
I think Scotland needn't form a Britannia, it usually controls most of the island anyway... Though I do see your point, and it would be nice to see Scotland do something extravagant (I mean, other than sometimes controlling Norway
Since Brittania implies claims on Britain, Scotland would never accept the formation of a buffer state of such a name- think the Macedonia issue, but with all of Greece being Greek Macedonia!