Preserving Scotland and Ireland

[zbyrne]

I've seen GB formed as early as the 1550s. I've seen Scotland steamrolled and conquered in a single campaign. The Irish fall like dominos.

Because of the English Channel, England can and does, quickly bully the other nations of the British Isles into submission. At least in continental Europe, where smaller nations can ally with larger allies (and those allies can actually help those smaller nations), but due to the sea crossing, and England almighty navy, no one can actually help.

I know that Scotland is guaranteed by France, but in many games I have seen this either quickly abandoned, or fail to achieve the desired effect (especially if Scotland is involved in any Anglo-French war).

Tbh I'm not sure how this effect could be desired - but it should be possible for the irish nations (who took ages to finally be subdued, and even then, kept rebelling, albeit unsuccessfully) and Scotland which of course famously only became a part of the union through inheritance (a scottish king ending up on the English throne, rather than the other way round), and later political union (so personal union in game).

so i suppose can either the devs work towards a solution, or other forum users suggest them?

 

[Gridley117]

I think the only way that anything remotely like this that could be achieved in game would inevitably favour the English. I'm not too knowledgeable on the events of the English, having never completed an entire playthrough as them. But I'd imagine that if the devs implemented something like this, it would probably result in a choice similar to the one the Polish get in the very beginning start of the game. Where the English are offered to bring James VI of Scotland over to rule over them. The end result being an English led PU with Scotland with James I as joint ruler of England and Scotland.

As for the Irish ideas. I agree in principle but I'm not too certain how they would buff the OPMs without making them too OP.

 

[zbyrne]

all i can say, is im currently playing a game as england, and very consciously not conquering my way through ireland or scotland, even though i have warred in both places. it helps that you can demand trade power, war reparations, or just do it for the prestige. i like that one of the irish countries tends to conquer all the others, and i often demand their release as part of any deal.

My solution for ireland would probably be something like a special case that no irish nation will accept vassalisation from the england, unless through a peace deal, regardless of how powerful or friendly england are. alliances should only be sought in the build-up to war against another irish nation, but abandoned afterwards. this would still make military conquest the way to go, and easy still for england, but perhaps an extra high autonomy / liberty desire for any irish nation under english rule, thus making the provinces unmanagable, at least until a higher tech level is reached.

my only concern is that the english (who were the dominant power in the british isles sure) can solidify their power there within fifty years of the game start, whereas GB wasn't formed till 1707, and ireland didnt join the union till 1800 - but quite close to the end of the game. Its not just rankling for historical accuracy here, but that england can basically secure its "homefront" that early gives it a bit of an unfair advantage

 

[AmbroStoics]

The problem is, that if there is a French-English war, England probably loses on the continent but occupies all of Scotland, which means that even in the case of a French victory in the war for Normandy/Aquitane, Scotland peaces out separately and loses land which makes it very hard to keep them alive.

 

[zbyrne]

The problem is, that if there is a French-English war, England probably loses on the continent but occupies all of Scotland, which means that even in the case of a French victory in the war for Normandy/Aquitane, Scotland peaces out separately and loses land which makes it very hard to keep them alive.

which is really the crux of the matter, as england, at least before the current patch, always tended to lose it's continential holdings, but if in the process gained scotland, it would actually be a real victory for england. in the current patch, i've seen england retain it's french lands a bit more, but even still, france will probably take them more often than not.

we've certainly identified the issue, now we must solve it

 

[Danfish77]

I think real life is the actual aberration here: why wouldn't England want to conquer Scotland so they could focus entirely on outward expansion? If anything, the AI follows a smarter course of action.

As more anecdotal evidence, I don't think I've played a game since Res Publica where Scotland hasn't survived into the 1600s; often as a vassal, but still.

 

[AhoyDeerrr]

my only concern is that the english (who were the dominant power in the british isles sure) can solidify their power there within fifty years of the game start, whereas GB wasn't formed till 1707, and ireland didnt join the union till 1800 - but quite close to the end of the game. Its not just rankling for historical accuracy here, but that england can basically secure its "homefront" that early gives it a bit of an unfair advantage

These are the basic rules of EUIV, creating specific rules so that England can not conquer Scotland and Ireland easily is nonsensical, sure it makes no sense that England (in theory, will come back to this later) is so easily able to defeat Scotland and Ireland but any country can do similar. Most games I have played Sweden annexes Denmark & Norway and half of the German countries are annexed long before 1600, neither of these are accurate either, it happens this way because that is how the game works.

I agree that small countries should be able to resist larger invaders BUT that should be done through new warfare mechanics and an improved combat system that applies to every single country, not by arbitrarily gimping or buffing specific countries to force it to happen historically.

I would also point that since CS I see Scotland annex all of England half the time, because of the cascade of terrible events England gets at the start of the game and the new rebel system completely screwing the AI. Obviously this could just be my experience, EUIV is a sandbox and all.

Also Ireland may not have been part of the union until 1800 but it was under English control almost unceasingly from game start to end.

 

[zbyrne]

Well considering they introduced a special government type just for england, i'd say your first argument falls flat. considering england is also one of the more popular nations, and also one which tends to have a global impact, I'd say it deserves the attention.

But if a solution is needed, here's a proposal considering England has a special government type. RE: the above the Irish in particular should resist vassalisation and alliances, and should have high autonomy and liberty penalties if conquered should still apply.

But when England fully controls Ireland or Scotland, then both nations are released under a personal union, with English monarchy government type (ie. they'd have their own parliaments) and then a full union (to form GB / UK) could only happen with a act of parliament passed in both parliaments (Basically you'd have to double the bribes), two unions couldn't happen within 50 years of each other, but while it wouldn't necessarily stop england steamrolling its neighbours right away, at least it would slow the steps towards complete control.

that said i do want smaller nations to be able to resist bigger ones, especially if they did so historically. And Ireland is a great example of this, because at the beginning of our game England was overlord of ireland as far as it and other europeans were concerned, but not as far as the irish themselves were concerned, and england actual hold over ireland was so weak that 1) in reality it only had any actual power around the Pale (dublin) 2) it had to be reconquered by the tutors and then the ulster plantations effectively set up colonies to finally oust the irish gaels and their society and social order

 

[AhoyDeerrr]

Well considering they introduced a special government type just for england, i'd say your first argument falls flat. considering england is also one of the more popular nations, and also one which tends to have a global impact, I'd say it deserves the attention.

As far as I can tell special government are not intended specifically for buffing countries, they exist to add flavor and variation through their attached mechanics. That being said the parliament mechanic fits Scotland's real life parliament more than England's and I would be completely fine with Scotland being given the mechanic.

But if a solution is needed, here's a proposal considering England has a special government type. RE: the above the Irish in particular should resist vassalisation and alliances, and should have high autonomy and liberty penalties if conquered should still apply.

But when England fully controls Ireland or Scotland, then both nations are released under a personal union, with English monarchy government type (ie. they'd have their own parliaments) and then a full union (to form GB / UK) could only happen with a act of parliament passed in both parliaments (Basically you'd have to double the bribes), two unions couldn't happen within 50 years of each other, but while it wouldn't necessarily stop england steamrolling its neighbours right away, at least it would slow the steps towards complete control.

This is the exact type of nonsense that doesn't need to be in game for any country. What you propose is a special system that specifically nerfs England instead of fixing the core issue.

that said i do want smaller nations to be able to resist bigger ones, especially if they did so historically. And Ireland is a great example of this, because at the beginning of our game England was overlord of ireland as far as it and other europeans were concerned, but not as far as the irish themselves were concerned, and england actual hold over ireland was so weak that 1) in reality it only had any actual power around the Pale (dublin) 2) it had to be reconquered by the tutors and then the ulster plantations effectively set up colonies to finally oust the irish gaels and their society and social order

Actually from the start of the game England had significant control over a large part of Ireland, it did not control it directly but large parts of the South and East coast were under the indirect control of England. The amount of control England had over Ireland changed a lot in the time frame. But all of that was a product of English foreign policy in Ireland, it was largely ignored in the early part of the period and the English kings were content in letting Ireland be largely autonomous but this type of vassal relationship is not present in game and so unless such a system gets implemented (and given to every country) there should be no change.

 

[zbyrne]

This is the exact type of nonsense that doesn't need to be in game for any country. What you propose is a special system that specifically nerfs England instead of fixing the core issue.

What are you on about, nerfs England? Like the War of the Roses nerfs England, so should that be removed?
Perhaps you didn't read/understand my proposal, so I shall say it again: an event pops in the [guaranteed] case that England acquires all the counties in Scotland / Ireland, which releases both countries as junior members of personal union and with English Monarchy government type so they have parliaments. The only way to reunify the countries is through an Act of Parliament. This event is a flavour event for England, helps to slow them down just a tad, and is not different from half a dozen other events which are to the massive advantage of some countries at the expense of others - The Iberian marriage which subjects Aragon to Castille, and the one where the King of Burgundy dies and France and Austria split the country. I fail to see how my suggestion is any different.

And anyway, I fail to understand how this issue can and should only be solved with some global solution, when that is clearly not the simplest or easiest way to solve the problem. I would rather than significant historical events which do not easily fit into an existing mechanic be provided for with events or mechanics unique to a single country. And I am only picking England here because I know and particularly enjoy the history of England Scotland and Ireland because it's my history, and what I've studied. But of course if there are other examples of this which apply to other nations and regions then I am fully supportive of their inclusion in the game.

Finally I'd also pick on England because in-game they are uniquely powerful and advantaged. They are the only major power in Europe which are not accessible by land, they have weak neigbours, and a powerful navy right from the beginning. As a result England can and do steamroll their way through the British Isles both easily and quickly. No other major power is in a better geographic position - I have never seen an invasion force land on English soil, and understandably, as no other powers have the ships, and even if they did, they would have to contest with that mighty English navy. So maybe making their job a tad harder isn't the worst thing to happen. (and further, since 1.12, I've noticed France being much less intent on warring with England over their cores - at least before, England were nearly guaranteed to lose their continental holdings. But now they aren't as likely to lose them, at least lose them quickly, but that doesn't preclude England quickly subduing the Scots and Irish).

And I'm not going to get into any great debate over the exact nature of Irish autonomy - what I will say and it is undeniable, is that even when all ruled by a single monarch, England, Ireland and Scotland remained separate polities until the respective Acts of Unions in 1707 / 1800. This event would better represent that is all I'm saying.

And I seriously don't get what you're on about demanding only global mechanics to solve a tiny localised issue. In fact I cannot think of any other place in the game which has this same issue.

 

[Zelius]

What are you on about, nerfs England? Like the War of the Roses nerfs England, so should that be removed?
Perhaps you didn't read/understand my proposal, so I shall say it again: an event pops in the [guaranteed] case that England acquires all the counties in Scotland / Ireland, which releases both countries as junior members of personal union and with English Monarchy government type so they have parliaments. The only way to reunify the countries is through an Act of Parliament. This event is a flavour event for England, helps to slow them down just a tad, and is not different from half a dozen other events which are to the massive advantage of some countries at the expense of others - The Iberian marriage which subjects Aragon to Castille, and the one where the King of Burgundy dies and France and Austria split the country. I fail to see how my suggestion is any different.

And anyway, I fail to understand how this issue can and should only be solved with some global solution, when that is clearly not the simplest or easiest way to solve the problem. I would rather than significant historical events which do not easily fit into an existing mechanic be provided for with events or mechanics unique to a single country. And I am only picking England here because I know and particularly enjoy the history of England Scotland and Ireland because it's my history, and what I've studied. But of course if there are other examples of this which apply to other nations and regions then I am fully supportive of their inclusion in the game.

Finally I'd also pick on England because in-game they are uniquely powerful and advantaged. They are the only major power in Europe which are not accessible by land, they have weak neigbours, and a powerful navy right from the beginning. As a result England can and do steamroll their way through the British Isles both easily and quickly. No other major power is in a better geographic position - I have never seen an invasion force land on English soil, and understandably, as no other powers have the ships, and even if they did, they would have to contest with that mighty English navy. So maybe making their job a tad harder isn't the worst thing to happen. (and further, since 1.12, I've noticed France being much less intent on warring with England over their cores - at least before, England were nearly guaranteed to lose their continental holdings. But now they aren't as likely to lose them, at least lose them quickly, but that doesn't preclude England quickly subduing the Scots and Irish).

And I'm not going to get into any great debate over the exact nature of Irish autonomy - what I will say and it is undeniable, is that even when all ruled by a single monarch, England, Ireland and Scotland remained separate polities until the respective Acts of Unions in 1707 / 1800. This event would better represent that is all I'm saying.

And I seriously don't get what you're on about demanding only global mechanics to solve a tiny localised issue. In fact I cannot think of any other place in the game which has this same issue.

First, I don't see why the situation needs to be changed, apart from aesthetics. In a similar way, I do not want to see a Castile-Leon PU or France to go back to vassal swarms again.
Secondly, while in history the borders of most countries in Europe didn't change toooo much, but in game you will often see them blob all over the place. If England wants to blob on the isles, let it.
Thirdly, Having the English monarch for Ireland/Scotland is just... I mean, how many seats will they even have? 1 or 2?

Just imagine that they are separate countries with one king, and that the in-game representation is an oversimplification, ok?

 

[zbyrne]

https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/top-23-most-played-countries.865345/

I would argue, that England, as the (officially) most played nation, deserves this attention. Inevitably playing as England involves warring / conquering Scotland and Ireland, and I continue to believe it should be a harder aspect of any England game.

 

[Montem]

Something important is the lack of English Naval Dominance prior to the 1600s. The English SHOULDN'T have an all-might navy and an uncrossable channel. The Irish minors should be encouraged to conquer each other, ally Scotland, and not all England anymore, along with a buff to Scotland.

 

[Twoflower]

The problem with this proposal is that it is actually a "desirable" outcome, both for historical flavour and for game balance, for England to usually end up unifying the British Isles and become Great Britain. Yes, the English AI will usually gobble Ireland and Scotland up a little faster than historically, but it would be much worse if Great Britain hardly ever had a chance to form.
Great Britain sometimes forming a little early is not as serious an issue as several historical major powers never even roughly having a chance to equal their historical achievements, such as:
- Spain never conquering Central and South America
- the Ottomans hardly ever taking Egypt
- the Netherlands hardly ever forming, let alone build a decent colonial empire
- Portugal rarely getting much of India or Indonesia
etc.

 

[zbyrne]

The problem with this proposal is that it is actually a "desirable" outcome, both for historical flavour and for game balance, for England to usually end up unifying the British Isles and become Great Britain. Yes, the English AI will usually gobble Ireland and Scotland up a little faster than historically, but it would be much worse if Great Britain hardly ever had a chance to form.
Great Britain sometimes forming a little early is not as serious an issue as several historical major powers never even roughly having a chance to equal their historical achievements, such as:
- Spain never conquering Central and South America
- the Ottomans hardly ever taking Egypt
- the Netherlands hardly ever forming, let alone build a decent colonial empire
- Portugal rarely getting much of India or Indonesia
etc.

I actually completely agree with you, and just recently posted on the historical accuracy of colonization - I've seen the Portuguese as opposed to spain, dominate if not outright control the carribbean, yet never brazil, or africa, and considering the portuguese only got brazil as a token prize after the treaty of torsillas that feels wrong. Yet I specifically talk about england, simply because it is the history i know best and am most interested in. I do of course advocate that all of the above and more should happen, and perhaps England should be further down the priority list, but i do not consider the UK (as in both scotland and ireland) being formed as opposed to GB (just scotland) potentially pre-1500 to me is just glaringly wrong, and as i mentioned above, it also means that england's natural enemies (after france) can be easily defeated, leaving england isolated and with little to do unless it starts colonising right away

 

[talilu]

Maybe a historical rival modifier with Irish would be enough. They would refuse to ally or get vassalized by the English and the most powerful Irish minor could unify the island by the Scottish help. There you go, half of the Island is unified in an allience against the immigrant Anglos.

 

[Zelius]

Maybe a historical rival modifier with Irish would be enough. They would refuse to ally or get vassalized by the English and the most powerful Irish minor could unify the island by the Scottish help. There you go, half of the Island is unified in an allience against the immigrant Anglos.

The trouble is, they tend to rival each other as they have no other possible rivals. The AI loves to max out its rival slots.

 

[zbyrne]

Something important is the lack of English Naval Dominance prior to the 1600s. The English SHOULDN'T have an all-might navy and an uncrossable channel

I do sort of agree there, 1688 and the glorious revolution was the last successful invasion of the british isles - and most of the prior ones would have occurred pre-EU4 period, I think there was one in 1513, but after that all the invasions happened pre-1500, and most of the big famous ones occurred during CK2 period.

However, I'm not proposing that they change the geography at all, as the channel was perhaps England's great defence against it's european rivals, right up to the modern period and ww2. Further, they'd have to completely change the way ships work in order to make naval invasions easier or more possible. For me the issue can only really be resolved within the british isles rather than making england easier to invade.

 

[Twoflower]

I actually completely agree with you, and just recently posted on the historical accuracy of colonization - I've seen the Portuguese as opposed to spain, dominate if not outright control the carribbean, yet never brazil, or africa, and considering the portuguese only got brazil as a token prize after the treaty of torsillas that feels wrong. Yet I specifically talk about england, simply because it is the history i know best and am most interested in. I do of course advocate that all of the above and more should happen, and perhaps England should be further down the priority list, but i do not consider the UK (as in both scotland and ireland) being formed as opposed to GB (just scotland) potentially pre-1500 to me is just glaringly wrong, and as i mentioned above, it also means that england's natural enemies (after france) can be easily defeated, leaving england isolated and with little to do unless it starts colonising right away

I was not really disagreeing with you, either. My point was that I prefer England conquering Scotland and Ireland a little early and becoming a viable power to England never forming Great Britain at all; i.e. my concern is that if too much effort is put into preserving the Irish and Scotland longer, it might result in preserving them for too long in most games. If a more viable Scotland and somewhat more resilient Ireland can be achieved without that consequence and without artificial railroading, if would not be bad.

One constructive suggestion perhaps, although Paradox might already be working on it: it has already been pointed out elsewhere on this forum that right now in 1.12 England cannot get the mission to vassalize Scotland any longer unless it takes provinces from Scotland beforehand, because the mission can only fire if Scotland has less than 50 development. While railroading is bad, the game should not actively de-incentivize historal behaviour or make it outright impossible; thus, the conditions of the mission should be changed to allow it to fire while Scotland has all its starting provinces + Shetland and Orkney.
Besides, it might of course be debatable whether a PU mission would not be better than a vassalization mission.

 

[zbyrne]

I was not really disagreeing with you, either. My point was that I prefer England conquering Scotland and Ireland a little early and becoming a viable power to England never forming Great Britain at all; i.e. my concern is that if too much effort is put into preserving the Irish and Scotland longer, it might result in preserving them for too long in most games. If a more viable Scotland and somewhat more resilient Ireland can be achieved without that consequence and without artificial railroading, if would not be bad.

One constructive suggestion perhaps, although Paradox might already be working on it: it has already been pointed out elsewhere on this forum that right now in 1.12 England cannot get the mission to vassalize Scotland any longer unless it takes provinces from Scotland beforehand, because the mission can only fire if Scotland has less than 50 development. While railroading is bad, the game should not actively de-incentivize historal behaviour or make it outright impossible; thus, the conditions of the mission should be changed to allow it to fire while Scotland has all its starting provinces + Shetland and Orkney.
Besides, it might of course be debatable whether a PU mission would not be better than a vassalization mission.

Hmm yeah, I do get you - and I'd have to agree, I suppose I'd rather see historical events happen even if at the completely wrong time, rather than not at all. Do personal union missions exist tho? Or could Scotland / England be given an event like the Iberian Wedding to resolve this?