Kingdom of Great Britain
- Thread starter Riddermark
- Start date
-
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.
What's so tough about it? I said it would be tougher for Wales and Scotland as they have to take much more and won't happen in 1 war.
Oh, I get it now. I meant: how could you make an event about the unification of Britain harder than having the nation get cores on every province in Britain. But I see what you meant now, it will be tougher for Scotland and Wales because they start with less of the required provinces (or no provinces at all in Wales' case!)
You have the three crosses.... St. Andrew, St. George, St. Patrick
The first flag in the bottom left is if Scotland's flag was prioritized over Englands....
Maybe in the game if Scotland takes over England it can have that flag...
Also maybe there can also be a flag change for when Ireland is fully annexed.. Like the last flag to the bottom right is the Union Jack in 1801 when Ireland was absorbed.
The first flag in the bottom left is if Scotland's flag was prioritized over Englands....
Maybe in the game if Scotland takes over England it can have that flag...
Also maybe there can also be a flag change for when Ireland is fully annexed.. Like the last flag to the bottom right is the Union Jack in 1801 when Ireland was absorbed.
Flag changes require tag changes. Tag changes require tags. Tags are expensive. This is a flagrant waste of them.
They just need to add the ability to change flags dynamically like was in EUII and will be going into Victoria II. I was sad it wasn't included in HttT.
I do find the thought of the Union being created by force a bit strange. IRL the Scots only ever agreed to the union after they bankrupted themselves funding colonial ventures and the only people who could save them were the English.
It seems strange to conquer a nation, ravage its farmland and kill its people, then 50 years on claim that you're all the same really and you should all work together holding hands and singing songs about rainbows.
It seems strange to conquer a nation, ravage its farmland and kill its people, then 50 years on claim that you're all the same really and you should all work together holding hands and singing songs about rainbows.
i solved the problem by changing the name to great union and requiring the ownership of paris and a couple others as well, giving cores on all of britain and france, for a what to happen when england wins the 100 years war really well. So that you can change to a tag that has french and english names in it so that the only english named great men turning up from french provinces isnt quite so annoying.
not sure its more historical though, as its something im pretty sure didnt happen even a little bit.
not sure its more historical though, as its something im pretty sure didnt happen even a little bit.
Hmmm.....
According to apostrophe.org.uk the plural of James is Jameses.
Or you could go with a more Latin variant, which'd be Jamesii, or something like that
England = ENG
Scotland = SCO
Ireland = IRE
Great Britain = GBR
Great Britain (formed by Scotland) = KGB
Great Britain with Ireland = GBI
Great Britain with Ireland (Formed by Scotland) = KBI
Not that hard...
17,576 different 3-digit letter combinations.
Even if you could not repeat letters then there would be 15,600 combinations.
Lack of tags should never be a excuse.
You misunderstand what is meant by tags being expensive. AFAIK more tags = slower engine, or something like that.
I'd argue that Great Britain with Ireland should be UKE, since it'd basically be the United Kingdom, and obviously UKS for if it was formed by Scotland.
This. Some algorithms involving them have an O(n²) complexity class, so adding three new tags to the 384 already in the game would make those parts of the program take... ~1.6% longer. That's not a lot, but it adds up very quickly, and there are far worthier uses for tags.
Last edited:
At any rate - does the game even check for events and stuff about tags that are not active? I mean the Great Britains to be formed won't even have cores until you form it so they won't exist at all in the game before creation.
The problem in-game is that it's far too easy for an ENG player (or any other... I just did it with Denmark) to conquer and occupy Scotland. In real life, it was extremely difficult to supply a hostile army in Scotland, and pretty much impossible north of Stirling. In the 13th/14th century, Edward I largely reduced the Lowlands to a vassal state, and did maintain garrisons in Scotland, around what is now the Glasgow area for example. But there was never an effort to invade the Highlands. This was all undone at Bannockburn, and following English monarchs were more interested in keeping Scotland quiet than in conquering her.
It strikes me that a good way to deal with this might be to greatly reduce supply limits for amies in owned but non-core provinces. It would make dealing with the inevitable revolts much more tricky.
It strikes me that a good way to deal with this might be to greatly reduce supply limits for amies in owned but non-core provinces. It would make dealing with the inevitable revolts much more tricky.
I was reading wikipedia on Great Britain because I wanted to see If i can dig up some not so contemporary looking flag
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
Just because it ended up happening in 1707 doesn't mean it couldn't happen before. James VI and I did indeed wish to see such a union happen in 1603 and afterwards.
That's why I provided the artice so you can see how many attempts there were even from 1600s onwards. These attempts can be included as possible alternative options of forming - from force to peaceful ones. But in all cases it must be a challenge for the player.
And again I want to say that 1600s+ is a good time to form it but not in the 1400s. In my mind it has to do with the way they thought. At first they (English) tried with brute force and had serious problems only then did the idea of a sort of a union recognizing the subjugated nations did evolve. My opinion.
So if England conquered Scotland in 1400s they would still be in the brute force stage so they would be just mighty England not trying to be democratic about it
Again that's what I think. I'm not burdening anyone with my opinion
p.p
And if we are using Coat of Arms for flags then it should be this one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:UK_Arms_1714.svg
Indeed, Edward I would've done it in the 1290s if he had been able to get away with it. The idea of uniting the island is old, it just took until 1707 to do it.
Again that's what I think. I'm not burdening anyone with my opinion
Although you do imply that anyone who disagrees with you is boring and not up to the challenge of doing things your way: