• 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.
You're quite right, having a buffer with that name would be irresponsible on behalf of the creator/s. Which is a shame, I quite liked the aggressive land-based Britannia versus Scotland and France and it gave the Southerners something to do. Perhaps the South is just not at all suited to control the island in this time line.
I find the idea of the case simply being that some countries gain some land, have a tag change then colonise fairly dull compared to the exciting story of Scottish threat. Could we turn England into this buffer state?
Concerning the Gaelic union (Alba or Albion?) I agree again with Slavick3000 in that it should not gain a culture other than Gaelic, potential revolts give it something to deal with and cause more conflict.
I think Britannia should not consist of Eire, especially considering the two island's relationships in this history. The reason for the real merger between the isles was due to Monarchical inheritance (if I remember correctly :S) which would be impossible in this time line and Eire seems far too nationalistic and powerful for a country to consider subjugating it. I do not think Eire should be able to form Britannia for similar reasons.
I look forward to having my ideas shot down again by a more knowledgeable or creative person! :)
 
England would be able to form Brittania as well, of course. One could remember that forming Brittania wouldn't be the starting point of uniting Britain, it'd be a step in the process- that is to say, for Brittany you'd have to go one specific path, and then actually succeed in first taking control of England and then (probably, unless someone else have already taken the provinces in question) beating Scotland quite severely, probably twice. For Scotland, you'd have to take the York path, and fight Brittany for influence over the England area. For the English minors/middling powers, you'd have to fight to secure your position in a conflict with both of them!

I'd agree on Alba only having Gaelic, but Breton and Cymric could be fitting as well, depending on the circumstances.

As for Eire... the Emerald Island wasn't united when the English took over- something which happened gradually, so the situation would be different here, but Eire is in the situation that they are not strong enough to dominate the isles themselves, and if any one power were to acheive dominance over Britain, then that power would be able to exert undue influence over Eire. So their goal would be to stop any Brittanian unification, regardless of who does it, while at the same time not overexerting themselves- perhaps forming Alba in the process.
 
If Eire takes land from Britannia or vice versa during scripted or ordinary wars, that of course is absolutely fine. I just don't think that Britannia should have cores on Eire, the name Britannia denotes the Great British isle and the Irish are not going to succumb so easily after being such a big world player.
Would Britannia play differently to Scotland?
 
Hmm. In my opinion, Britannia actually sounds like a good name for a buffer state. Unlike Brittany and Scotland, it has never been a real kingdom. Its name comes from a Roman province that only occupied one side of the Channel, which should make Brittany agree to the name.
Scotland, on the other hand, would only agree to this if they felt they couldn't hold areas south of Northumberland securely.
Because historical Britannia only extended up to Hadrian's Wall, Scotland could be safe in the knowledge that Britannia does not have cores on its heartland, just like it lacks cores on Brittany proper.
Essentially, the idea is that creation of Britannia keeps Brittany away from Scotland and vice versa, stemming further conflict on the British Isle.
That, of course, backfires when one of the Britannic kings militarizes the country and goes on a 'reconquering' rampage.

On a more technical note, I am close to finished with the events for the Scottish-Breton war, and the various formations of Britannia resulting from that. I am still not sure how Irish intervention could play out in such a scenario though...

EDIT: How should the Breton parliament be dealt with after the formation of Britannia(by Brittany)? The general feeling Britannia has seems to point to a rather centralized and autocratic state (similar to the historical Prussia), which seems like it would be difficult to do with a parliament over your head. So, should a Brittany-turned-Britannia have some coup events to "take care" of the parliaments, with the option to let them be or merely curbing their power for a less militaristic Britannia? Or should a Brittany-turned Britannia have their parliament(s), with different event lines based on which parliament it chose as Brittany? How would that integrate with events for a Scottish or an Anglosaxon Britannia?
 
Last edited:
Your idea is much better in terms of how interesting it is in my opinion (and I secretly really want you to win this discussion ;) ), but regardless of where the name 'Britannia' comes from- it refers to the island. Agricola for instance, was ordered to conquer the island of Britannia though he didn't succeed, it proves that this was the name for the island, for the Romans at least.
Also, according to one of the little museum-shop things by Hadrian's wall, the wall was more likely to have been a display of strength or a way to keep soldiers busy than a border, Romans have historically gained lands in Scotland.
I don't know if the Scottish of this alternate 15th century would think of themselves as Britannic though and early Scottish texts would be hard to find. Scotland was fairly unchanged by the Romans and thus terms like 'Britannia' may not be offensive to them or even widely known.
Also, if Wikipedia is to be trusted, in the 12th to 13th centuries (and one would assume after) the isle was referred to as 'Grande Bretagne' to distinguish itself from Bretagne. Is or was the French influence strong enough in this history for it to keep the name of Great Britannia? Obviously this is purely aesthetic and doesn't really matter :p .
I think I'm going to stop posting in this thread, and leave stories to you academics. Good luck with the events as I hope to play through them in the future! :)
 
Duckett said:
Scotland was fairly unchanged by the Romans and thus terms like 'Britannia' may not be offensive to them or even widely known.
Most educated people in the this time would know it, though.
And the Scots aren't just the Scots in this timeline- they've changed the culture of northernmost England by annexing it, yes, but they have been changed by it, too.
I think Brittania, as a name, should stay, to allow it to work for both a Brittania formed by Great Britain being unified by a state on that island, and a Brittania formed by Little Britain unifying Great Britain...
So, there'd be, essentially, four ways of creating Brittania:
1) As Scotland, move south, weaken the Highlanders, and succeed in achieving dominance over all of former England (requiring a confrontation with Brittany, and, most likely, the Hansa)
2) As Brittany, go for Full Parlement, and confront the Scottish so hard they lose more then just England. And, again, the Hansa.
3) As an English Minor, defeat the Scottish and Brittany, in the first case to the degree that Brittany would have had to. Also, the Hansa.
4) Brittania being formed as a buffer state between Scotland and Brittany- this would be the way of having it come into being that would be most common in games, but it would also be the one that would be least suitable for a player- since you have to mess with the save files to switch nations.
 
Last edited:
Yay for necromancy.

Ways to form Britannia as the currently (mostly) finished events stand:
1. Scotland has an opportunity to put the paternity of Duke Robert I of Wessex to question. If it wins the war against Wessex (which can gain Irish and Breton support), it can install David (son of James V) as Duke of Wessex and gain Wessex as a vassal. Upon James V's death, Scotland inherits Wessex (or just gains cores if they already diplo-annexed it.) When David dies, James VI faces some revolts in Wessex, which can cause them to break free, losing Scotland the cores. When James VI dies the Saxons, exploiting the weakness of Mary, openly revolt as Britannia.

Question: Should the Scottish player, in this case, have the opportunity to join the rebels (become Britannia) and then face a released AI Scotland, or should this be an AI-only option?
My fear is that it will happen after Scotland has already colonized somewhat, and Britannia isn't (until the end anyways) a colonial nation.

2. French or Breton-only culture Britannia that holds on to Wessex and Bristol will face minor revolts in that area every generation or so. When the religious conflict strikes Brittany, a CRC Britannia will revolt from them and join them against Cornwall. After the religious turmoil, Brittany has the option of bringing them back into the fold by force, or letting them go.
This is specifically an AI-only option. Brittany can already choose to become a more moderate form of Britannia if it chooses the anglosaxon culture path and expands in England.

3. The Bristol Conspiracy. If Wessex gets large enough (Midlands and Lincoln, Lancashire, or Yorkshire) and turns Protestant (or Reformed), there will be a conspiracy to re-instate Catholicism. The player has the option of supporting the conspirators or fighting them. If the conspirators win, they can negotiate with the Pope for the right to purge Great Britain of Protestantism in exchange for being granted the Kingdom of Britannia. This naturally makes Scotland unhappy...

(Not done yet) 4. If Cymru somehow gets large (starting provinces + Bristol + any 2 of Lancashire, Lincoln, and Yorkshire.), it will get revolts from its Saxon subjects. If the player sides with the rebels, Cymru will become Britannia.
 
Yay for necromancy.

Ways to form Britannia as the currently (mostly) finished events stand:
1. Scotland has an opportunity to put the paternity of Duke Robert I of Wessex to question. If it wins the war against Wessex (which can gain Irish and Breton support), it can install David (son of James V) as Duke of Wessex and gain Wessex as a vassal. Upon James V's death, Scotland inherits Wessex (or just gains cores if they already diplo-annexed it.) When David dies, James VI faces some revolts in Wessex, which can cause them to break free, losing Scotland the cores. When James VI dies the Saxons, exploiting the weakness of Mary, openly revolt as Britannia.

Question: Should the Scottish player, in this case, have the opportunity to join the rebels (become Britannia) and then face a released AI Scotland, or should this be an AI-only option?
My fear is that it will happen after Scotland has already colonized somewhat, and Britannia isn't (until the end anyways) a colonial nation.

2. French or Breton-only culture Britannia that holds on to Wessex and Bristol will face minor revolts in that area every generation or so. When the religious conflict strikes Brittany, a CRC Britannia will revolt from them and join them against Cornwall. After the religious turmoil, Brittany has the option of bringing them back into the fold by force, or letting them go.
This is specifically an AI-only option. Brittany can already choose to become a more moderate form of Britannia if it chooses the anglosaxon culture path and expands in England.

3. The Bristol Conspiracy. If Wessex gets large enough (Midlands and Lincoln, Lancashire, or Yorkshire) and turns Protestant (or Reformed), there will be a conspiracy to re-instate Catholicism. The player has the option of supporting the conspirators or fighting them. If the conspirators win, they can negotiate with the Pope for the right to purge Great Britain of Protestantism in exchange for being granted the Kingdom of Britannia. This naturally makes Scotland unhappy...

(Not done yet) 4. If Cymru somehow gets large (starting provinces + Bristol + any 2 of Lancashire, Lincoln, and Yorkshire.), it will get revolts from its Saxon subjects. If the player sides with the rebels, Cymru will become Britannia.
Uhm. Well, I'm a bit confused here: 2 makes it sound as if there are more paths to becoming Brittania than 1, 2, 3 and 4, but why isn't that a number of its own?
Er, and Scotland should, IMO, have a way of becoming moderate Brittania if Brittany has a way.
 
What I meant was that Brittany, if it chooses the Anglo-culture path, would fill a more moderate form of Britannia's role (be an aggressive competitor for power on the Islands and keep Scotland and Ireland from devoting all of their resources to colonization).

The main gameplay impetus for Britannia is that Brittany, Scotland, and Ireland spend most of the game peacefully colonizing, which is boring and not at all challenging for a human player. Britannia pops up in the early 16th century, harasses Brittany, Scotland, Ireland, and anyone else willing to put their nose into the English mess, and then implodes at the end of the 17th century.

Brittany, if it takes the Anglo-Saxon culture path, ends up competing for England with Scotland, taking care of that problem.

For a player, the challenge of Britannia is to attempt to subjugate the Islands in the less than 100 years that it has before its decline sets in and it can't compete with the colonial powers of the Islands.
 
The main gameplay impetus for Britannia is that Brittany, Scotland, and Ireland spend most of the game peacefully colonizing, which is boring and not at all challenging for a human player. Britannia pops up in the early 16th century, harasses Brittany, Scotland, Ireland, and anyone else willing to put their nose into the English mess, and then implodes at the end of the 17th century.

The game needs these kinds of things.

The reformed Poland has this impetus too.

Nice when game-play function and flavour can combine so well.