Minor Proposal: Reduce the number of provinces in the British Isles

[QuintusSertorius]

In EB1 with 21 factions, there were 8 provinces in the British Isles. AI Casse, left to its own devices, never really did anything beyond consolidating this region, then just sat there. For the human player, this offered a challenging (because there were massive Eleutheroi stacks up there) but ultimately safe base from which to build a powerful empire that could then expand onto the continent.

In EBII with 28 (and eventually 30) factions, there are still 8 provinces in the British Isles. AI Pritanoi, as far as I've seen so far, still never does anything but consolidate the British Isles, becoming massively rich when they do so. I have seen the occasional building of navies and landing of troops in Gaul, but they never do anything beyond that. For the player, it a safe, protected space to carve out your own economic base without risk of interference from any other faction, before you have to consider turning your sights on the continent.

There are more provinces in the British Isles than in Greece proper. Or in Italy. Almost as many as in Anatolia. In moving from EB1 to EBII we actually reduced the number of provinces in Greece, a pretty pivotal and important area in the period. Given the hard limit in the number of provinces (200), and the need to share the spotlight around, I don't think so many provinces in so peripheral and marginal an area is justifiable. My experience of EBII so far says you only need three provinces to get an economically viable kingdom, I don't think the Pritanoi's starting position should merit them more than that.

So here's what I propose: reduce the number of provinces in the British Isles to 4, and redistribute those four freed up provinces elsewhere. Perhaps some to the Balkans more generally, if there's going to be a new faction there (like an Illyrian tribe or the Skordiskoi). Maybe some more in the east. Perhaps another province in Greece. Either way, I think gameplay would be improved by limiting AI Pritanoi and making human-played Pritanoi have to look to Gaul much sooner.

[Sarkiss]

+ 1.

also, maybe some provinces in northern Eurasia can be considered too? there was a post a few days ago (which I cannot find, unfortunately) that mentioned an indie province that was as far as 8 turns march aways from a nearest player controlled region.

[Thuycidides]

Good post. I agree on the Eurasia proposal, too.

[Wulfburk]

Though i loooooooooooooooooooooove Pritanoi (and Casse is my favorite EB1 faction) i kinda agree. Keep Camulosadae, the one in wales, the Pritanoi capital, and the scottish one.

[Cohors_Evocata]

Whilst I agree 8 provinces might be a bit too many for the British isles, I'd really rather prevent this mod from becoming too centered on the Mediterranean or taking away too much from the northern parts of the map.

[Xerrop]

also, maybe some provinces in northern Eurasia can be considered too? there was a post a few days ago (which I cannot find, unfortunately) that mentioned an indie province that was as far as 8 turns march aways from a nearest player controlled region.

Good post. I agree on the Eurasia proposal, too.

The 8-turn marching province was an African one: Gaetulia. But with a new Numidian faction there it would be bad to have even less provinces in the Maghreb region.

While I agree that there could be easily a deletion one or two British provinces, the same done for northern mainland Europe and Asia is NOT justified. There are too many more factions busy there - Suebi, Lugiones, Bosporus, Sarmatians, Saka Rauka and also Pahlava if they expand northwards.

But we have still no clue what the final factions will be - if there is e.g. a Belgae one with interests on the Isles the many British provinces could be quite necessary. Otherwise the Pritanoi and Belgae would wipe out each other quite fast.

[Mamertine]

Minor Proposal Proposal: Remove the British Isles and the Pritanoi, add Thracian faction and more provinces around Asia. But it will never happen.

[Sarkiss]

While I agree that there could be easily a deletion one or two British provinces, the same done for northern mainland Europe and Asia is NOT justified. There are too many more factions busy there - Suebi, Lugiones, Bosporus, Sarmatians, Saka Rauka and also Pahlava if they expand northwards.

you made (unwittingly) a good point here. most of these northward expansions should be discouraged (for all sorts of reasons) and reducing the number of northernmost provinces might encourage historical expansion southward.
it is quite dissapointing to see most of those factions you listed, plus Armenia, headed north, instead of fighting their way down south.

[Xerrop]

you made (unwittingly) a good point here. most of these northward expansions should be discouraged (for all sorts of reasons) and reducing the number of northernmost provinces might encourage historical expansion southward.
it is quite dissapointing to see most of those factions you listed, plus Armenia, headed north, instead of fighting their way down south.

Why should the northernmost factions be discouraged to expand in various directions? And there are only few provinces north of them - it is not like there are 50 useless provinces there. It seems not wrong for those factions to expand their homelands in easier directions before going south. Plus they receive some retreat options when things go wrong against their southern neighbors.

About Armenia or Pahlava: Their northwards drive cannot be stopped even if all northernmost rebell territories will be deleted. They will still expand against the Sarmatian and Saka starting provinces. You would have to delete those factions also ... to me it feels like never ending circle when arguing this way.

[Rad]

I agree with this proposal in general.
However, I feel that the intended effect can be achieved by reducing Britain to 5-6 provinces, instead of 4. Silluri, Caledonians, Irish, Casse, Belgae... it's just a very interesting spot, especially when it comes to unit variety. Also I like to play a "safe" campaign once in a while. Being constantly on guard gets boring from time to time.
I plan on playing a Pritanoi campaign in the final version of the game, once all their main and regional units are added in, and the British tribesmen unit gets rid of its silly rock throwing fetish.

+ Rep,

Rad

[Kull]

My personal opinion is yes, there are too many. But I'm more with rad on this. Six - five only if we were totally desperate. I will propose this as part of the "new factions" discussion. Doesn't mean it will happen, of course.

[alex86]

Is there also a way to make consolidating the British Isles a much more time consuming, and much less rewarding endeavor? -- or, perhaps, going in another direction, much less *possible*.

[Sarkiss]

Why should the northernmost factions be discouraged to expand in various directions? And there are only few provinces north of them - it is not like there are 50 useless provinces there. It seems not wrong for those factions to expand their homelands in easier directions before going south. Plus they receive some retreat options when things go wrong against their southern neighbors.

the problem is, they do not use it as a base to strike elsewhere, that just isnt the case. have a look here. it is clear from these reports that there is a persistent trend as far as preferences of Parthia, Armenia, Bactria, and Saka are concerned. it is WIP though, so fingers crossed.

About Armenia or Pahlava: Their northwards drive cannot be stopped even if all northernmost rebell territories will be deleted. They will still expand against the Sarmatian and Saka starting provinces. You would have to delete those factions also

nope. their northwards drive can be stopped. it was successfully achieved by Extended Realsim, sub-mod for RTR, and EB1 sub-mod that made it run on BI exe and implemented a few other features, one of which was assigning victory conditions/regions to factions and thus influencing their target choices.

you seemed to have assumed that i propose this primarily as a means for influencing factions behaviour though. this isnt teh case. what i suggested is that it might influence the expansion choices as a side effect. but my main concern is the same as the OP's: to give more attention to the denser populated areas of the map (Greece is one such example). the rest is OT.

[Nicov55]

Are we reopening a thread that just got closed?
that issue has been adressed and we all could express our opinion on the matter. Yes, i also would have the british islands, scandinavia and the most remote areas in todays Russia removed for more settlements in Asia Minor, Syria Greece and Egypt (and that's my personal opinion) but that's the EBII team to decide if they want to go that way or not.

[BrennusEBII]

There are certainly some valid points raised here, and indeed this issue has been raised in the past within the team itself. However, as the Faction Coordinator responsible for the Pritanoi, I would not be happy seeing the number of provinces in Britain reduced. The reasons for this are not simply sentimental or protectionist, although it cannot be ignored that they play a part. Rather it partly to do with future gameplay, and partly to do with current gamelplay. First of all the British Isles are complete in terms of province descriptions, which is more than can be said for other regions of the EBII map including Italy and Gaul. Now, obviously this represents a sizeable amount of time invested into writing these, but it also means that by removing them and replacing them with 4 new provinces we lose an area of the game which is already complete. If, as may very well be the case, that the Belgae are voted by the team as a future faction, it will mean development of that faction will be delayed by the fact that 4 new Pritanoi provinces would have to be written.

On an historical note, reducing the British Isles to 4 provinces does a diservice to the archaeological data which we have for the region, and reduces a very vibrant and varied set of Iron Age communities to, in my opinion, the sort of homogenous vanilla Rome barbarians. We have much more data available for the Iron Age in Britain than we do for other areas, such as the Balkans (and hence the Scordisci). If we were to reduce Britain to 4 provinces then we may as well remove the Pritanoi alltogether (who already have all their descriptions and unique government finished). We already have concepts for 7 new British Isles based units which will add to the area. We are hoping to begin work on these soon.


Replacing thse provinces will also mean that we need to redress the mechanics which govern the map. Removing them will mean that the British Isles will not only need to be adjusted, but also that the area we add them to will have to be adjusted as well.

The M2TW engine, as can be seen from the AI faction progression thread, is quite good for AI naval invasions, indeed one which was posted shows the Sweboz getting involved in Scotland. With this in mind it shouldn't take much tweaking to make the Pritanoi more inclined to naval invasions.

Finally, if we were to add a Belgic faction to the mix then I am hoping to make one of the victory conditions for this faction to be conquest of large parts of Britain and defeat of the Pritanoi. Reducing Britain to 4 provinces would dum down such victory conditions.

[SachaVyKos]

I tentatively offer this suggestion which may be extremely unpopular but has some historical credence.

I would remove the Provence of Cornwall and bond the territory there to Brittany.... It is a stretch, i'll admit that but there is more than a little evidence to suggest that the peoples or Cornwall and Brittany were were related long before the upheaval of the 4-5th centuries. This move would be a cheap and unfair representation of the Dumnonii

Conversely id bind the territory of Kent to a Belgian mainland territory for very much the same reason. The Belgians had made their headway into the south eastern briton by the games start date and this would strengthen their influence there... This would be exceptionally important if a Belgea faction is introduced.

The end effect is that in order to truly secure Briton the Pritanoi faction would have to invade the continent and conversely if a continental power takes either Britanny or Belgium they'd share a border with the British power, potentially increasing the likelihood of an active war.

I understand this is unfair to either the Dumnonii or Kent, both tribal groups that stood the test of time and clearly operated under their own direction but this suggestion isn't entirely without merit from either a game play or historical approach.

[Nicov55]

I agree with you approach on the matter, the same way i find that Syria doesn't have enough settlements, i'd like the Pentapole and Jerusalem added. i would also like more cities along the Nile. Egypt itself was rich enough so the roman emperors so it's protection from any inner or outer menace paramount. Yet again, i doubt that will happen. Maybe someone gifted with enough time to create a submod?

[QuintusSertorius]

There's been an official response to this on The Org:

There are certainly some valid points raised here, and indeed this issue has been raised in the past within the team itself. However, as the Faction Coordinator responsible for the Pritanoi, I would not be happy seeing the number of provinces in Britain reduced. The reasons for this are not simply sentimental or protectionist, although it cannot be ignored that they play a part. Rather it partly to do with future gameplay, and partly to do with current gamelplay. First of all the British Isles are complete in terms of province descriptions, which is more than can be said for other regions of the EBII map including Italy and Gaul. Now, obviously this represents a sizeable amount of time invested into writing these, but it also means that by removing them and replacing them with 4 new provinces we lose an area of the game which is already complete. If, as may very well be the case, that the Belgae are voted by the team as a future faction, it will mean development of that faction will be delayed by the fact that 4 new Pritanoi provinces would have to be written.

On an historical note, reducing the British Isles to 4 provinces does a diservice to the archaeological data which we have for the region, and reduces a very vibrant and varied set of Iron Age communities to, in my opinion, the sort of homogenous vanilla Rome barbarians. We have much more data available for the Iron Age in Britain than we do for other areas, such as the Balkans (and hence the Scordisci). If we were to reduce Britain to 4 provinces then we may as well remove the Pritanoi alltogether (who already have all their descriptions and unique government finished). We already have concepts for 7 new British Isles based units which will add to the area. We are hoping to begin work on these soon.


Replacing thse provinces will also mean that we need to redress the mechanics which govern the map. Removing them will mean that the British Isles will not only need to be adjusted, but also that the area we add them to will have to be adjusted as well.

The M2TW engine, as can be seen from the AI faction progression thread, is quite good for AI naval invasions, indeed one which was posted shows the Sweboz getting involved in Scotland. With this in mind it shouldn't take much tweaking to make the Pritanoi more inclined to naval invasions.

Finally, if we were to add a Belgic faction to the mix then I am hoping to make one of the victory conditions for this faction to be conquest of large parts of Britain and defeat of the Pritanoi. Reducing Britain to 4 provinces would dum down such victory conditions.

[b0Gia de Bodemloze]

My opinion is that 5-6 regions will be ok.

[saxnot]

I don't know what the likelihood of the Belgae getting in is, but if they do, i assume they'll get one of the british provinces. That would make the current number of british provinces ideal.