Scotland/ british isles game balance questions.

[User4035]

I have many questions regarding scotland and the game balance.

I'm wondering how accurate the base tax and force limit is for Scotland. Also, how is the vassalization of scotland mission reasonable for England?

Historically it was pretty hard for England to conquer Scotland and even Ireland for that matter. Compared to other countries who conquer their neighbors, it seems England's Island buffer zone protects it from all the negatives. If France or Castile gobbles up its neighbours that quick it gets a coaltion against it. Not england though.

And Scotlands basetax is less than Irelands. Is that historically accurate? And 9 forcelimit for scotalnd is just .... c'mon. Even when they get that event which spawns like 11 highlanders they can only maintain that army for a short while.


I would like to know some reasoning behind how scotland was made in EU4.

 

[StatikShocker]

it is what happened historically, in that Britain once unified used their island bufferness to take over the world... but yes it can happen way to early and easily. There are a lot of things negative for England, such as the Hundred Years War (AI will lose usually), War of the Roses, and the English Civil War. They also get ravaged by the reformation and often by liberalism, and is always in danger of a peasant's war. Even once unified, there isn't enough basetax in the isles at all to make Britain a true power in the EU timeframe. They would never be able to defeat France, Spain, Austria, or Russia.

All that being said, Scotland should be much more powerful and England should not get the subjugate causus belli. They should have to pick away at Scotland for years, getting AE and facing the potential of Scotland getting allies and being a constant threat from the north when England is weak from other wars. Instead, they are just like byzantium to the ottomans or provence to france, granada to castille, tver to muscovy. and inevitable stepping stone, being killed early and easily without fail every game. I have seen scotland ai take the isles before, but then they make Britain and you would never know the difference.

 

[unmerged(727995)]

Instead, they are just like byzantium to the ottomans or provence to france, granada to castille, tver to muscovy. and inevitable stepping stone, being killed early and easily without fail every game.

Agreed. It should also be remembered that England neither subjugated nor conquered Scotland during the game's timeframe, unless of course you count Cromwell's campaigns in the Second and Third Civil Wars. Scotland only became properly involved in English affairs after the death of Elizabeth I and James I took the crown. It was also a willing participant with the Parliament in the First Civil War and was still a part of the country even after the King had been executed and remained so all the way through the Protectorate, Commonwealth and Restoration. Seeing how England did not merely conquer Scotland and instead peacefully entered into union with them this should be properly represented in game, Scotland deserves more than to simply be another small nation whose main role is to be militarily conquered by a larger neighbor, after all Scottish soldiers and armies were very active during the Civil War and were in fact, at least before the advent of Cromwell's New Model Army, more professional and capable than their English counterparts.

 

[Schmoekoeksklok]

I don't think Scotland really needs to be stronger, I already see them taking advantage of England's poor starting position a little more then I'd expect. Ofcourse that doesn't generally last very long, but they're still doing better then other smallish countries next to major powers.

But yeah, the subjugate Scotland mission I don't like. I think it would be better if Scotland got an event instead, like the Hungarian one. So they can choose to be put in a union with England or rule on their own, but give England a CB to enforce one.

 

[Rubidium]

Missions don't just represent things that countries did, they represent things that countries tried to do as well. That's presumably why e.g. Japan has a mission to conquer Korea (to represent the Imjin War).

England had tried to vassalize Scotland pretty much since day 1, and most famously under Edward I, II, and III. But in the EU4 timeframe, I assume it's supposed to represent the Rough Wooing by Henry VIII, as well as possibly the various other English interventions in Scotland during the Tudor period.

Yes, this does mean that England swallows Scotland earlier in the game than in history, but that's hardly the only example of that phenomenon (how often do you see AI Granada last until 1492? at least a vassal Scotland is still alive, and could have vassalage cancelled if England loses a war). More to the point, AI England hardly needs to be even weaker, which is all buffing Scotland will do, and boosting basetax would just make player England stronger (since the player will absolutely still crush Scotland fairly quickly).

 

[Incompetent]

If you make Scotland much stronger, you'll see lots of games where Scotland conquers England, which is probably not so good for the balance of the game (Scotland isn't inclined to fulfil England's role of coloniser/naval bully). I think this is more of a general issue where it's easy for a large country to conquer a smaller one if there aren't enough distractions. England conquers Scotland so quickly because it has nothing better to do and because Scotland is too small and remote to have any friends (based on how the AI chooses allies).

 

[Solo4114]

There's also a difference -- at least in my mind -- between conquest and vassalage. England vassalizing Scotland early on still leaves Scotland as an independent nation. If the English player mismanages the relationship, the bond of vassalage could be broken.

I haven't tried playing a game as Scotland, but I expect the real trick would be to ally with other nations in the area, and use that alliance to stave off English attacks. Does the AI try to take it out on Day 1 while ignoring France the way many players do? Does it call Portugal to assist it?

With Ireland, the English nominally ruled Ireland from the time of Henry II. I think the frequent chances for revolts (if you don't burn diplo points to convert cultures) are what make Ireland fairly represented.


Lastly, I don't think "balance" is exactly the right word to look for. It isn't supposed to be balanced in the sense of Ireland having a fair shot at, say, taking over England. I think "fair" is the right word, though, and that's based partially on history. It's fair to have Ireland as a much weaker regional player because, well, that's what it was. It's also fair for Scotland to be weaker than England because, well, it was. Maybe not AS weak as it's portrayed in the game, but Scotland was always disadvantaged by comparison to England in terms of things like natural resources and administrative control.

 

[StatikShocker]

usually, english ai uses subjugate causus belli to slowly conquer scotland ai over the course of 5 wars. ai's are horrible with using the subjugate causus belli correctly

 

[TheBloke]

There's also a difference -- at least in my mind -- between conquest and vassalage. England vassalizing Scotland early on still leaves Scotland as an independent nation. If the English player mismanages the relationship, the bond of vassalage could be broken.

I don't think vassals of human players ever break away.

Maybe you're thinking of PU-minors, who can indeed break if not handled properly - due to negative opinion of the overlord from the PU-minor, and/or negative Prestige for the overlord; both evaluated each time the overlord's monarch dies.

I expect most human England players will annex Scotland sooner rather than later, certainly sooner than for most vassals, because:

1. There's little or no neighbouring provinces to feed to them.
2. They provide little in the way of military support.
   1. Whatever armies they do field are unlikely to ever leave the Isles because of the standard AI-sucks-at-invasions issues.
   2. And they're not Lucky.
3. Doing so facilitates the formation of Great Britain, for +25 Prestige and 20 years of increased taxation income (and slightly increased revolt risk.)
   1. And I prefer the GBR flag. It's all shiny.

I seem to recall that I annexed them pretty much as soon as I could in my current game. I took the mission to vassalise Scotland at the beginning of the game - during the HYW- vassalised them; won the HYW and PU'd France; then vassalised Tyrone and fed it the rest of Ireland shortly afterwards. I then annexed Scotland and Tyrone not too long after the 10 year minimums were up. I had the provinces to form GBR quite a long time before I reached Admin Tech 10 and was actually able to do it. (But then I didn't actually do it for another 10-15 years. I kept waiting until I only had 75 Prestige so I could make the most of the rewards.)

 

[Jabarto]

If you make Scotland much stronger, you'll see lots of games where Scotland conquers England

That's already the case though? Most all of my games end with Scotland controlling everything north of Oxfordshire at the very least.