Scotland

[Incompetent]

I've put myself down for Scotland, so I should probably explain what I intend to do. As you can see, I plan to salvage most of the existing events, though sometimes in a slightly different form. This is all a bit sketchy at the moment, so any help, advice or ideas are welcome.

Norway
- The fight to keep Norway (1419-1525)
- Integrating the Norwegian nobility

England
- Act of Union (1450s)
- Claims on southern England (after A of U)
- Taxation in England
- English revolts (several - may be stoked up by Hansa and/or Brittany)
- Rule from York or Edinburgh?
- Anglophile king

Highland v Lowland
- Fights with the Highland nobility (affects other events - may be stoked up by Eire)
- Highlands land reform
- The clan system and the Scottish army

Trade
- Involvement in the Sund crisis
- Expulsion of foreign merchants

Naval Reforms and colonial endeavours
- Land or naval?
- Naval academy* (only with Norway)
- HMS Sovereign of the Seas (1637)
- Scottish Altantic company (gamble similar to France's in vanilla)*
- If that goes right: goodies
- If it goes wrong: Scotland gets to either sell some colonies or go bankrupt

The Gaelic wars
- Involvement in Eire's clan war (options depend on which side EIR is on, and how SCO gets along with Highland clans)
- Efforts to steal Eire's colonies
- Quarrels over Wales (may also involve Brittany, and have a religious element later)
- Reconciliation with Eire (much easier if countries have the same religion)

Religion (*, but I'm not sure how)
- The Lollards, pre-Reformation
- The Lollards, Reformation
- Religion in Norway
- John Knox
- Irish missionaries
- John Wesley

Industrial revolution (18th-19th century)*
- Industrial Revolution in England
- Coal-mining in Northumbria
- Exodus from the countryside
- Canals
- Machine-breakers

Succession events
- Patrick or Harald? (1565)
- 'The Popish King': Jacobite-style shenanigans, lasting longer if Scotland is Anglophile
- Brittany's succession

Universities and Education
- Isaac Newton
- various opportunities to invest in education, with little immediate reward
- Scotland can end up with different levels of education depending on investment - this will have an impact on various other areas (starred)

Adam Smith*

The Seven Ill Years (1690s - famine etc)

 

[unmerged(20077)]

So, did the team decide to go with the idea of the Percies ruling over Yorkshire and Lincoln as Scottish vassals? If so, I don't see much point in an Act of Union event so early; it should be relatively easy for Scotland to diplo-annex anyway.

 

[Incompetent]

So, did the team decide to go with the idea of the Percies ruling over Yorkshire and Lincoln as Scottish vassals? If so, I don't see much point in an Act of Union event so early; it should be relatively easy for Scotland to diplo-annex anyway.

On the contrary - York is probably slightly richer than Scotland, so they won't be able to diploannex. The idea I'm going with is that York and Scotland have the same king, but the kingdoms themselves haven't quite been united yet (think England + Scotland under the Stuarts).

1450 might seem quite early, but those first 30 years make a big difference as far as the AI is concerned, because that's the period in which the AI is at its most violent. Basically from an economic point-of-view I want Scotland to have northern England more or less straight away, but I don't want them to immediately go and invade the South. Having vassals like that gives everyone in Britain a brief respite before the wars kick in, so they can focus on other things. Without it Brittany and Scotland pour all their efforts into killing each other right from 1419, and it doesn't do either of them much good: Brittany tends to lose its hold in England, and Scotland forgets to help Norway out, and so squanders that inheritance.

Hmm... maybe it'll play better to have Norway inherited first and York later. But then Scotland needs northern England for the wealth to maintain its empire... I'll have to think about this.

 

[yourworstnightm]

So, are we going to call the northern english kingdom York, or something else?

 

[Incompetent]

So, are we going to call the northern english kingdom York, or something else?

I'm calling it York for the moment. It's actually called the Kingdom of England by the Scots, as is Wessex by the Bretons, but they need to have different names to tell them apart. For a similar situation, look at modern China, technically a single country, but with two competing governments, one in Beijing and the other in Taipei. Can you think of a better name?

 

[unmerged(20077)]

I'm calling it York for the moment. It's actually called the Kingdom of England by the Scots, as is Wessex by the Bretons, but they need to have different names to tell them apart. For a similar situation, look at modern China, technically a single country, but with two competing governments, one in Beijing and the other in Taipei. Can you think of a better name?

We conjecturally called it "Norroy" at one point, but it seems all those ideas have been abandoned. How on earth can a 2 province minor be richer than Scotland? What's the point of trying to make Scotland a major if we're leaving all its provinces dirt poor?
Or, what about a CoT appearing in Edinburgh or Glasgow as one does for England in vanilla?

 

[Incompetent]

We conjecturally called it "Norroy" at one point, but it seems all those ideas have been abandoned. How on earth can a 2 province minor be richer than Scotland?

Because it has 4 rich provinces (Yorkshire, Lincoln, Lancashire, Midlands). It's meant to be a remnant of the Kingdom of England, and as such, it would be silly for places like Lancashire to be counted as part of Scotland. Northumbria OTOH had long been disputed between England and Scotland, so I've made that Scottish.

What's the point of trying to make Scotland a major if we're leaving all its provinces dirt poor?

They're not dirt poor; the Lowlands will be rich enough. But making the mountainous part of Scotland 'the richest farmland in Europe' as the current events say is just absurd.

Or, what about a CoT appearing in Edinburgh or Glasgow as one does for England in vanilla?

That's certainly possible. But it would not come automatically - it would depend on Scotland's choices and actions.

 

[unmerged(20077)]

Four provinces? This seems a far cry from the original plan to slightly pare back Scotland... the original idea was based on Scotland having too easy a time of it with all those provinces. It was to let them keep Northumberland and Lancashire but change Yorkshire and Lincoln into a vassal state ruled by the Percy family. That would be fairly simple to diplo-annex but an event could do it anyway in the 17th century if Scotland failed. The Midlands were going to be ceded to an independent Wales.

 

[Incompetent]

Four provinces? This seems a far cry from the original plan to slightly pare back Scotland... the original idea was based on Scotland having too easy a time of it with all those provinces. It was to let them keep Northumberland and Lancashire but change Yorkshire and Lincoln into a vassal state ruled by the Percy family. That would be fairly simple to diplo-annex but an event could do it anyway in the 17th century if Scotland failed. The Midlands were going to be ceded to an independent Wales.

They are different interpretations; I've done things the way I have because it seems easier to explain. In my version, the kingdom of England is still formally in existence, but de facto it's divided, like Mainland China and Taiwan, following a war of succession which became a civil war. The King of Scotland thus calls himself king of England as well, but the realms are still separately administered.

OTOH, in your suggestion, England has completely disintegrated at some point after the Norman Conquest, and the Scots have simply annexed large parts of northern England, with les Perci being one of the few Norman families to hang onto their land. The trouble is, what claim does Scotland have in this version to the rest of England? For that matter, what brought it to such a state? On thing that makes things difficult is the fact that England completely dwarfed Scotland in terms of economic and military strength. There's no way a Scottish army could have taken and held much of England for any length of time without strong local support, so why are the English so keen on Scottish rule? On a similar note, the Percys' land was probably worth more than the whole of Scotland, so why are they the junior partners?


My scheme of moving the powers out of England proper seems to be having the desired effect on the AIs: it stops them fighting each other to death from 1419 onwards, which is what almost always happened before. Now Brittany and Scotland will hopefully be able to get on with some of their pre-1450 objectives, respectively the division of Gaul and fighting for Norway, and will have more time to prepare before their big fight.

 

[unmerged(20077)]

Hmm... originally history was to aberrate at 1066, with the English and the Normans somehow engaged in "mutual annihilation" at Hastings, so Scotland invaded. Some of us thought this was a bit of a straw clutching exercise to find an explanation of a starting position already decided upon for the game.

My variant was that history stayed the same until the Peasants' Revolt in England. In the aberrated history, it succeeded, the king was killed and there was a brief civil war over the succession. London, still held by the revolters and governed Swiss style by free peasants and burghers, turns to the Hanseatic League to keep the nobles out.
With the civil war over, things otherwise look to return to normal, only now Owain Glyndwr appears. His plan was to ally with the Scots and French and entice the Percies onto his side by offering them the North of England. Suppose it had worked (but substitute Bretons for French): we have Wales controlling Wales and the Midlands, Scotland controlling Northumberland, Brittany Cornwall and Bristol and the Peasants as part of the Hanseatic League London and Kent. Just before 1419 the Percies quarrel with Scotland, lose Lancashire and have to accept vassalisation.

The current version is completely different, but if it works, no reason to start messing it about. By the way, what's happened to Wales?

 

[Incompetent]

Hmm...

I didn't like what was in place, but I like your variant better than my ideas. I'll have to think about how this affects Scotland's role in England - at the moment my plan is for them to get the north of England (including Percy-land) fairly easily, but they'll have a rough time of it if they take over London or the Breton sphere of influence. However, one of the chief problems before was that Brittany was too aggressive early on (Scotland is supposed to be more of an aggressor, but their bloodlust is kept in check by the Norwegian wars), and that's not going to be improved by handing southern England back to them. Perhaps the Percies and Wales have managed to stay on good terms with both sides, so they create a genuine buffer zone?

 

[yourworstnightm]

Hmm... maybe it'll play better to have Norway inherited first and York later. But then Scotland needs northern England for the wealth to maintain its empire... I'll have to think about this.

I say let scotland go for Norway first and leave England for later (same with Brittany). Scotland usually seldom help Norway, so with England out of reach in the beginning there could be some progress. But I think we could add at least Lancashire to Scotland, no use making them too poor to maintain their empire.

 

[Incompetent]

I say let scotland go for Norway first and leave England for later (same with Brittany). Scotland usually seldom help Norway, so with England out of reach in the beginning there could be some progress. But I think we could add at least Lancashire to Scotland, no use making them too poor to maintain their empire.

Yes. I'll probably go with the Impaler's plan, which means the English inheritance events will be a lot less important. But I still want Kalmar to have a decent chance of getting Norway in the end, otherwise they're a bit weak. Perhaps I'll push the Norwegian inheritance to 1460 or so, but Kalmar can hang onto norwegian culture and cores for a few decades after that to give them a chance to take Norway back.

For Brittany, I'm now thinking they could start with the south of England under direct rule, but without anglosaxon culture. Brittany would get a chance to integrate the English, but only somewhat later, and I don't want to see Brittany have anglosaxon and french culture at the same time - a critical choice in the Reformation, perhaps?

 

[Incompetent]

Update on Scotland: I'm about 60% done on the Scottish event file. But I would appreciate help on the following:

The Industrial Revolution, preferably from someone who knows what they're talking about

Ideas for Scottish dynastic choices and consequences. I'm thinking that the initial Scottish dynasty will die out in the mid-17th century, and the player will get a choice between a) the Percies, b) a Norwegian dynasty (if they have Norway), c) a Scottish dynasty. This may also have religious consequences: the Percies will be ultra-Catholic, the Norwegians Protestant, and the Scots will want to enforce whatever the state religion is. The Norwegian dynasty would have a much stronger naval/colonial focus than the other two; the Percies would be very unpopular at first, but good administrators; the Scots would be a 'conservative' choice, and would get claims on the Breton crown later (ie to vassalage, not cores!), but wouldn't have particularly great stats. The choice would also affect choice of capital (York or Edinburgh), which has other consequences.

Ideas for what the Scottish Atlantic Company should involve, and what 'success' and 'failure' conditions should be.

Ideas for how exactly education would affect other areas - I'm thinking good education will lead to a much better Industrial Revolution and some bonus 'Excellent Ministers', but make the population harder to push around on religious matters, and lead to increased pressure to liberalise the government.

 

[yourworstnightm]

The only thing that worries me is that If the history of England was the same as in rl until the peasant revolts, England would eventually have been ivolved in frnech politics which would screw up or aberrated history for France. (who would have been a better sucessor to the french throne than a Plantagenet). Maybe 1066 is too early for screwing up england, but we need to modify english history a little bit, for example Henry d' Anjou better not inherited the english throne and so on... I see a possibility for two well established english kingdoms possible, one southern kingdom, which history could look like rl english history and one northern kingdom which the scots had high influence on. the split could have happened later than 1066, possibly in some kind of succession crisis later on. (If the Anjous never inherited).

 

[Nikolai II]

the Norwegians Protestant, and the Scots will want to enforce whatever the state religion is.

Historically the Norwegians were rather staunch supporters of the pope and it took some work from the Danes to 'protestantise' the country.

But if Scotland is willing to do ther same for some reason then I see no further objections.

 

[Incompetent]

Historically the Norwegians were rather staunch supporters of the pope and it took some work from the Danes to 'protestantise' the country.

But if Scotland is willing to do ther same for some reason then I see no further objections.

Different politics, different Reformation. It may be that the Norwegian peasants stay Catholic, but Lutheran ideas catch on among the nobility as a way of increasing their power. In any case the Norwegian dynasty would be more pragmatic religion-wise than the Percies.

Also, all sorts of 'grass-roots' religious movements are going to be sweeping England and Scotland. Perhaps some of these would make it to Norway, at least for the educated populace.

 

[Incompetent]

Further update: I'm not finished by any means, but the event file is getting to a stage where even I don't know what's going on, so other people probably ought to look at it and tell me whether or not it's sane.

To see what I've done, go to my website and download province.csv, major_sco.txt and sco_1419.txt.

Features to note:

1. The Scottish event file is completely new and rather complicated, and it's still only about 80% done. Please tell me if it makes any sense at all.

2. To make the Reformation work properly, most provinces have been set to Catholic in 1419, including all of Norway. However, many conversions will come by event, and not always ones which the Scottish government approves of. Scotland potentially has a choice between Catholic, Protestant (= Anglican-like Church of Scotland) and Reformed (= Presbyterian), and all three choices could make sense depending on how the events turn out.

3. Scotland has a new primary culture, tuareg (will be called 'scottish' in-game). Scotland starts with gaelic culture as well, but may lose it.

 

[yourworstnightm]

What about adding a gaelic revolter country named Caledonia, which might occur during the revolt of the highland clans, Caledonia could by events become an irish vassal. But the scots could also easily reconquer it. Also if the revolts fail, a lot of highlanders will flee to Eire.

 

[Incompetent]

What about adding a gaelic revolter country named Caledonia, which might occur during the revolt of the highland clans, Caledonia could by events become an irish vassal. But the scots could also easily reconquer it. Also if the revolts fail, a lot of highlanders will flee to Eire.

Good ideas here. Whatever happens with the Highlands will certainly be tied up with Eire, though how exactly will depend on how we rework the Irish.