Kingdom of Great Britain

[Riddermark]

I was reading wikipedia on Great Britain because I wanted to see If i can dig up some not so contemporary looking flag And then I noticed this:

The Kingdom of Great Britain, also known as the United Kingdom of Great Britain was a sovereign state in northwest Europe, in existence from 1707 to 1801. It was created by the merger of the Kingdom of Scotland and the Kingdom of England, under the Acts of Union 1707

So basicly that's why It doesn't feel right when I see GB form in 1400s. Because in my games so far it did that and which was worse Kingdom of England pops up as independent and they coexist (even if the english form GB).

I never played England/Scotland so I have no idea what are the requirements to form Great Britain and also am by no means a specialist in british history.. but! Shouldn't the forming be more difficult and require more than just conquering territories?

I'm pretty sure that the English wouldn't change the whole name and everything if they conquered scotland in the 1400s. I believe they would just try to suppress them and still call themselves kingdom of England. Just bigger and more glorious.

How about making it more historical? Read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acts_of_Union_1707

Based on it we could have the "pass the act of union" decision with the requirement to be X years into personal union with Scotland/England. Good relations, maybe good prestige and low Infamy. Just an example.

Actually looking at this article about all the different attempts we could have a few situations which would allow you to form it depending on the circumstances. Would feel less straightforward and historical at least in my mind.

Ok rant's over I wanted to get this off my chest

 

[monsterfurby]

Why is it not realistic? I think it's perfectly fine to have Britain (England + Wales) form Great Britain after they take over Scotland as well. It's also plausible to have English dissenters, after all.

 

[Riddermark]

Ok thanks for your opinion. I gave my reasons.

One other thing would be that it's just too easy like a joke now. Should be more challenging than this. Face it if the AI does it 9/10 times then it's kind of easy What's wrong with having more historic options and ways to do it ? As I said check the article and see for yourselves.

 

[luitzen]

Why is it not realistic? I think it's perfectly fine to have Britain (England + Wales) form Great Britain after they take over Scotland as well. It's also plausible to have English dissenters, after all.

I don't think it would be called Great Brittain or the United Kingdom in that situation.

 

[jpr123]

The same can be said for any formation decision. Like Spain shouldnt be able to form unless either Aragon or Castille inherits the other, or Italy cant be formed unless Rev. France invades and creates it as a puppet.

 

[Shabz]

Well, I do not see why there wouldn't be an option to do it if England player wants to and if they capture or diploannex Scotland. It is a decision that you can either take or not, nothing forces you to do it. On the other hand, AI does what is more beneficial for his country. I do not really see a problem with this.

 

[Darkrenown]

Eh, it's not really historical, but it's not meant to be exactly so anyway. I'm ok with Britain being a "hey look, we united the whole island!" decision, it's the same with the other nation forming decisions.

 

[Maldenic]

All the national formations are inherently flawed, except possibly Russia and Ireland, they are both unrealistic and "gamey" rewards for conquering territory. But I don't really know how they can be fixed without creating some even more gamey mechanic.

 

[Worldbeing]

The idea that an England that had counquered Scotland would end up being called Great Britain isn't too unlikely. United Kingdom only makes sense in the context of well, a united English and Scottish Kingdom, but the game doesn't use that. Technically, of course, since James IV (Scot) took over the English throne, England should be in a PU under Scotland from 1603...

The problem in EU3 terms is that Scotland can be conquered without serious difficulty. England tried to conquer the Scots; we failed. In EU3, you can just take them over, wait a few years, and they're loyal subjects of the English crown, hence the ahistorical formation of GB several centuries early.

 

[Maleficus]

Technically, of course, since James IV (Scot) took over the English throne, England should be in a PU under Scotland from 1603...

James VI of Scotland actually. Not to be pedantic or anything

The problem in EU3 terms is that Scotland can be conquered without serious difficulty. England tried to conquer the Scots; we failed. In EU3, you can just take them over, wait a few years, and they're loyal subjects of the English crown, hence the ahistorical formation of GB several centuries early.

Heh... You make it sound as if this attempt at conquest was only ever one-way. Scotland made at least as many attempts to move south as England did to go north. Every attempt, in either direction, led to failure and defeat sooner or later.

For those of you (There's bound to be one or two) who know for an absolute certainty that Scotland was never ever the aggressor, because you've seen Braveheart and/or Rob Roy, take a look:


Malcolm III (Don't seem to be able to find any pages focusing on Malcolm's incursions into England, but about halfway down Malcolm's page there is a brief overview)
Battle Of Neville's Cross
Battle of Flodden Field
Jacobite uprisings. Provides a sort of backstory on the next two examples
Battle of Preston
Battle of Culloden. Took place in Scotland, but if you read the backstory you'll see that the Jacobite forces had previously invaded England, even making it as far as Derby before heading back north...


More on topic though, yes it does seem odd sometimes seeing GB formed so early, but if everything in-game happened exactly as it did IRL then it wouldn't be a game, it'd be a history lesson.

No game, not even this one, is, or should be, about absolute historical accuracy. The game world will be accurate to within a reasonable margin of error (Much more accurate than most games BTW) on whatever you choose as the startdate. Thereafter it becomes a sandbox where whatever happens, happens. Therefore if England manage to conquer Scotland, or vice-versa, early in the game, then so be it. If they then choose to form GB before 1707 then that's fine. At least it keeps it interesting.

Do you Ever complain when England get a King James in 1425, or when someone other than a Habsburg is elected Holy Roman Emperor? Of course you don't. that'd be silly.

I guess what I'm saying is: Stop picking hairs and just enjoy the damn game

 

[Worldbeing]

Oops. I'd even thought six, then typed the numerals the wrong way around o

I don't think anyone here is pressing for completely historical faithfulness; that'd be boring and the lack of it is what sets EU3 above its predecessors in the series. But as that bibliography you give suggests, conquering Scotland as England, or vice versa, wasn't an easy task, and the difficulty of it should be reflected in the game, naturally leading to more historically plausible situations.

 

[Maleficus]

Oops. I'd even thought six, then typed the numerals the wrong way around o

:rofl:

I don't think anyone here is pressing for completely historical faithfulness; that'd be boring and the lack of it is what sets EU3 above its predecessors in the series. But as that bibliography you give suggests, conquering Scotland as England, or vice versa, wasn't an easy task, and the difficulty of it should be reflected in the game, naturally leading to more historically plausible situations.

Perhaps it could be solved with an increase in Nationalist rebels in favour whichever nation is either conquered or losing severely?

I know that in my game as England (Started 1649) I've completely annexed Scotland by 1660 (Took it slow while also fighting in Ireland and India) and up to now (currently in about 1685) I have seen maybe 4 or 5 Scots Nationalist rebels pop up. All of them in Orkney and none of them numbering more than 3,000.

They're more of an annoyance for making me march my army all the way up there than a threat....

So that's one idea, I'm sure there's other possible solutions....

 

[unmerged(71062)]

I'd say the problem with GB formation, and that it always happens so early, is that Scotland never really has a chance. I dont think I've seen a single game where an unhindered England didn't completely overrun Scotland early. I dont have Heir yet, but I doubt the CB system makes their survival any more safe.

Im not really sure how to balance that out. Buffing Scotland might only make them a tastier reward. Maybe adjusting NI preferences, Military Drill for Scotland? Adjusting sliders?

 

[sjones25]

I dont think I've seen a single game where an unhindered England didn't completely overrun Scotland early.

I've seen it:

But you are right, the AI plays stupidly as small countries, no little nation next to a large power ever seems to do well, which is why Castille always beats up Aragon and France always eats up Burgundy and the little Dutch minors etc.

 

[SharpFish]

I thnk it all comes down, in a way, to manpower. England can crush Scotland becuase it has to be powerful enough to at least contest against France. But this is all weird. During the Wars of the Roses in the mid 1400's, Edward IV sent 11000 men to Calais and French paid a large indemnity to avoid being invaded. Not going to happen in EU is it?

I don't know how to balance it. Reading about the period hasn't give me a clear understanding of the balance of difficulties. Arguably grossly inflating attrition for English armies in Scotland would do the trick but thats a crude solution.

 

[Will Lucky]

Actually the first idea about the Kingdom of Britain was actually given by James I, in the early 1600's when he took the throne of England and Scotland. But the idea wasn't popular with nobles.

 

[sjones25]

The usual way the Scottish defeated the English IRL was by using the Scottish terrain against the English invaders. The English were used to the plains and rolling hills of England and France, and thats just not how it is in most of Scotland. Their heavy cavalry was mostly rendered useless and the Scottish picked great places to meet the English. The English were often overconfident, thinking that their huge, "better" equipped armies would crush the Scottish no matter what. Check out the battle of Bannockburn for a perfect example of how the Scottish survived as a nation.

 

[Autonomous]

Actually the first idea about the Kingdom of Britain was actually given by James I, in the early 1600's when he took the throne of England and Scotland. But the idea wasn't popular with nobles.

That was already mentioned upthread. Unless this is some kind of tedious joke involving numerals. :/

 

[sjones25]

Actually the first idea about the Kingdom of Britain was actually given by James I

James I of England WAS James VI of Scotland. Its the same guy; its just that Scotland had already had 5 other King Jamess (Kings James?) while he was the first King James of England.

 

[Riddermark]

Allright noone wants more decisions, more options,more challenge or variety. I guess I'll have to mod it for my own fun then.

But a good idea would be to at least have cores on all scottish/welsh provinces before the decision to form Great Britain becomes available. (if you are england of course) would be tougher for Wales and Scotland but not impossible.