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

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.

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.

to be i honest even if this is minor i agree with QuintusSertorius.
britan right now has too many provinced compared to its importance at that time. not some much historically but at least gameplay wise.
in britan you have only one faction there without another one to delay pritanoi.how many factions take advantage of britania as a theater of war,only one plus hypothetical invasions from one or two factions usually the germans or one celtic facton.
3 more provinces in greece or balkans for example you have the following factions benifited:KH,Mac,Epeiros,pergamos,rome,getai,pontos,ptolemeoi

True. I am surprised the team even gave the British Isles so much work and descriptions already. Certainly France, Germany and more eastern areas could use these provinces for greater gameplay effect while still having good historical data available. Britain is an extremely niche area for battles in the game, surely a much more conflict filled area with many more different communities like the ones mentioned is more worthy of representation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Harkon

True. I am surprised the team even gave the British Isles so much work and descriptions already.

---

Having a faction coordinator who spends his real life examining the British Iron Age, coupled with the fact English is his first language, tends to be a key factor in this.

@QuintusSertorius

I have been attempting to respond to your thread at TWC, but for some darn reason I can't seem to get my posts actually posted. I keep being told I need to wait for moderator approval.

With regards the suggestion which is often being posted, that Britain was an isolated area which was tangential to the rest of the world I would like to defend the position by noting that for much of the later Iron Age (La Tene period) southwestern Britain and Armorica were involved in a vibrant and intense maritime exchange. From c.120BC onward there is evidence for even more intense exchanges between Belgic Gaul and south eastern Britain. There is even slight evidence for contact between the east of Britain and Europe across the North Sea. The druidic tradition was established in Britain and exported to the continent, likely c.600BC (according to Jean-Louis Brunaux). Two potins (high tin cast coins) have been recovered from the Arverni oppida of Corent, attesting to contacts, albeit possibly indirectly, between the Britons and Arverni prior to the start of the Gallic Wars. Likewise the tin trade should not be underestimated, and was responsible to varying degree for the wealth of the Armorican tribes and the Bituriges who occupied the Loire valley.

@Brennus
I did not realise that the Pritanoi, and the British Isles in general, were one the most completed areas of the game. well done, Sir! :bow:

Thank you very much. There are a few things that need changing (mostly old Casse names) but in essence they are finished. A lot of thanks must go to oudysseos for laying the foundations of the faction, and @V.T. Marvin for being so patient and honest when we were designing the Pritanoi governments.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brennus

@QuintusSertorius

I have been attempting to respond to your thread at TWC, but for some darn reason I can't seem to get my posts actually posted. I keep being told I need to wait for moderator approval.

With regards the suggestion which is often being posted, that Britain was an isolated area which was tangential to the rest of the world I would like to defend the position by noting that for much of the later Iron Age (La Tene period) southwestern Britain and Armorica were involved in a vibrant and intense maritime exchange. From c.120BC onward there is evidence for even more intense exchanges between Belgic Gaul and south eastern Britain. There is even slight evidence for contact between the east of Britain and Europe across the North Sea. The druidic tradition was established in Britain and exported to the continent, likely c.600BC (according to Jean-Louis Brunaux). Two potins (high tin cast coins) have been recovered from the Arverni oppida of Corent, attesting to contacts, albeit possibly indirectly, between the Britons and Arverni prior to the start of the Gallic Wars. Likewise the tin trade should not be underestimated, and was responsible to varying degree for the wealth of the Armorican tribes and the Bituriges who occupied the Loire valley.

---

I appreciate that you're very close to this and it's something you're working on right now, and that a lot of effort has gone into the region. I was only involved in a handful of province descriptions, and they were not trivial pieces of work, the scale you're covering dwarfs anything I did. I don't doubt the archaeology is interesting, and I defer to your greater expertise in this area.

That said, this feels to me like justification for the British Isles being present (because of interchange with Belgic Gaul), but not enough for more provinces than Greece. When we were 21 factions as at EB1, you could forgive a generous allotment to Britain, but when we're now at 30 factions, it feels like too heavy a weighting. If we had a higher upper limit, or hadn't yet reached it, I wouldn't have an issue, but we're already there and some of the areas that lost provinces are pretty central. Greece, Anatolia and Iberia, for just three regions, have lost provinces to make room for more detail elsewhere. Those are places which affect multiple factions each, yet changes to Britain for the most part affect only one, which is another imbalance.

Someone on TWC suggested perhaps some merging as happened with Asturia-Cantabria, and while that isn't ideal, from a gameplay perspective I think something like that would be the right idea. As I said, at the moment 8 provinces in Britain makes the task of the human player far too easy. Reducing that would force them to engage with the continent and early, rather than having the luxury of operating within a sheltered space until such time as they felt the need to go beyond.

First of all thanks to @Brennus and everyone who worked to complete the work for the British islands.

Reducing Britain to 4 regions seems a bit excessive to me.
But I agree that considering the increased number of factions and the slightly extended map, 8 regions for the British Islands (considering that most of Ireland is now off limit) seems excessive to me.

Personally I think removing 1 region would make it more balanced.

I think 6 is the maximum you could justify, and 5 would be more reasonable, in terms of an appropriate weighting. If we were just sharing the reduction in provinces equally (21/30=0.7) then they should have (8*0.7=5.6) six.

Suggestion:

Don't reduce the number of provinces in Britain. But make the 8 provinces poorer - less income. Reflect the fact that Britain was less developed than Gaul before 14 AD (but better than Germania). That way the AI Pritanoi will be geographically safe when they dominate the island, but relatively poor, not an economic superpower rolling in gold.

Even the Romans had a long, tough time turning Britain into a profitable concern. It wasn't exactly the Mother Lode of gold at the end of the rainbow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Titus Marcellus Scato

Suggestion:

Don't reduce the number of provinces in Britain. But make the 8 provinces poorer - less income. Reflect the fact that Britain was less developed than Gaul before 14 AD (but better than Germania). That way the AI Pritanoi will be geographically safe when they dominate the island, but relatively poor, not an economic superpower rolling in gold.

Even the Romans had a long, tough time turning Britain into a profitable concern. It wasn't exactly the Mother Lode of gold at the end of the rainbow.

---

That's not really a solution to the issue, which I don't think you have really grasped. Which is not the British Isles being to powerful compared to other more developed regions during the period. Making the provinces poorer changes nothing for other regions that are not adequately represented when you compare them to the British Isles, based on historical importance and the number of factions that interact there.

I must agree with QuintusSertorius - British Isles seem to have to much provinces compared to the other regions, more important than Britain at that. 5-6 provinces is maximum in my opinion. On the other hand I mus agree that Brennus has done (and is always doing) simply AMAZING work with Britain (and other regions he has been working on). The passion, knowledge and profesionalism is mindblowing even for someone not interested in these regions. I would not handle any waste of his work therefore there is a question? Would it be possible to lower the number to provinces to 6 without major drawbacks for government system and province description (for example can province discription be "merged" with a small amount of work?).

As a direct result of this thread the team has started to debate the number of provinces provided for each region. Bearing in mind the above posts and those from TWC, but in particular the logic presented by QuintusSertiorius, I have consented to stripping Britain of a province.

QuintusSertorius, I take my Deal "crown" off to you (see the British Museum). Well done. :balloon:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brennus

As a direct result of this thread the team has started to debate the number of provinces provided for each region. Bearing in mind the above posts and those from TWC, but in particular the logic presented by QuintusSertiorius, I have consented to stripping Britain of a province.

QuintusSertorius, I take my Deal "crown" off to you (see the British Museum). Well done. :balloon:

---

Thank you for being magnanimous about it - thing is there was never any criticism of the very high quality of your work on Britain and Gaul - this was always about the balance of provinces available to the factions. Given the organic way things have developed, I wouldn't be surprised if no one has stopped and looked at the whole map and wondered how the provinces are allocated. I think it's a good debate for the team to have, I'm sure there are other areas which are either over-provinced or under-provinced.

Good points. I think that the important thing to understand is that gameplay is the primary motivation for a potential reduction of provinces here. Personally, I think that 6 regions for the British Isles would be enough. Province descriptions shouldn't be removed, but merged and changed a bit when appropriate, because it would be a waste otherwise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QuintusSertorius

That said, this feels to me like justification for the British Isles being present (because of interchange with Belgic Gaul), but not enough for more provinces than Greece. When we were 21 factions as at EB1, you could forgive a generous allotment to Britain, but when we're now at 30 factions, it feels like too heavy a weighting. If we had a higher upper limit, or hadn't yet reached it, I wouldn't have an issue, but we're already there and some of the areas that lost provinces are pretty central. Greece, Anatolia and Iberia, for just three regions, have lost provinces to make room for more detail elsewhere. Those are places which affect multiple factions each, yet changes to Britain for the most part affect only one, which is another imbalance.

---

I agree entirely with this, particularly the bold, couldn't have said it better myself. Noone's suggesting removing the Pritanoi, and they still have all of your mentioned representation and influence if they have a bit less provinces, because let's face it, they don't warrant that many provinces only due to a noticeable role in trade and economic interactions with other cultures, it's not a convincing argument. When all is said and done, this is a Total War game, combat will always be the most important aspect, and the most important thing is covering as many global important locations as possible, not favour one, especially as secluded as the British Isles for warfare purposes.

I have to agree with QuintusSertorius on this one. And the fact that so much work already went into the descriptions is not a valid point. You could hyperbolicly say that the most zealous description writer gets more provinces. And I certainly dont want to come across as a prick, knowing how much work you guys put nto this wonderful mod (and I didnt), but isnt the distribution of the provinces something you figure out before you make the descriptions and governments?
Cheers&Regards
ZiePe

I would have suggested that no regions be stripped from the region, but having one region taken away is a good compromise. Tbh, every single one of my games has macedonia become a powerhouse by turn 100 because it takes over all of Greece and is swimming in money and troops. Take that extra region and put it somewhere east.

there are regions that could definitely use additional provinces. There is an extra faction in Iberia; Middle East seen an introduction of Nabatea but lose of Phoenicia (merged), which was one of the key regional provinces and a unique mercantile and naval asset for whoever controled it; Anatolia, with an added Pergamon but no extra provinces, and which could perhaps benefit from addition of Lycaonia.

this doesn’t mean Greece needs an axe though. It hosts 3 factions yet has the same number of regions as Britain (excluding the northern Epirote province).

I agree, I think the restoration of Phoenicia would be a good start.