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

[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.

[Sarkiss]

@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!

[Brennus]

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.

[QuintusSertorius]

@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.

[sonnet]

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.

[QuintusSertorius]

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.

[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.

[krste]

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.

[Yavana]

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?).

[Harkon]

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.