Done as a joke?

The next patch will change England to the United Kingdom (when certain conditions are met). Does that count?

 

Kinda.
I find it a bit hard to play as Queen Elizabeth.

Though, I understand that Scotland or Ireland can't be added due to size issues.
...Well maybe Ireland, if the island was upsized.
Or something like a Gaelic Peoples, combining Ireland and Scotland, if the british isles were upsized.

Sounds kinda silly, but... it just feels weird that the closest I can come to playing my home nation is... the nation that commited genocide against us, raped us, enslaved us, and currently control us.

 

I call bollocks. Do you live in the British Isles?

 

Used to.
I move around a -lot-.
Currently in California, may finally be settling down here.

 

Well Ireland's lack of historical impact seperate from the British Empire was far below many other nations, so it certainly doesn't get in.

So are you a troll or just uninformed on history/reality?

 

Actually, Ireland has had a great scientific impact on the world. Anyone who is big in chemistry knows that.

And, I'm neither a troll nor a historical dimwit. In fact, history is pretty much my life. Outside of folklore, theology, and cinema.
I am biased, however. Even my friends call me over-nationalistic and a stereotypical highlander.

Scotland and Ireland have had quite a large impact on the world, larger than some of the nations people want to see added, and some of the nations currently in the game.
Read up on the inventions of both nations, you'll be pleasantly surprised.

 

OK then. 'Sjust the categorisation of the French as universally hated throughout history, plus your assertion the Celtic nations were held down and buggered one by one by ze evil English made you look like a halfwit.

 

I want Ukraine in the game. Along with Poland of course

 

The first half I can agree with, but the last half...
Claiming otherwise is simply idiotic.

The English treated the Scottish and Irish no better than the early european settlers treated the native americans.
Or at worst, like Cromwell, they treated the Scots and Irish no better than Hitler treated anyone.. well, anyone not Hitler.

 

I would suggest paying more attention to them then.

Really not, yes they fought but the Scottish at least gave as good as they got in the invasion and subjudgation department. Plus if you look at history a much more common motif of the bad times in soctland and ireland is oppression by Lowland Scots and Irish Protestants respectively, the English governments sin being apathy.
Cromwell was a arsehole, but comparing the sack of Drogheda and the protectorates to the Holocaust and WW2 is a disservice to both periods.

Plus what I was really complaining over in your original post was the 'currently control us' idiocy. Considering the average scot gets more representation and funding than someone south of the border, the act of union was initiated by scotland, and Britain tried to give the whole of ireland independence only to have the north rebel in order to remain part of the UK.

Things invented by people in the nation != acheivements of that nation.
Newtons law of motion = Newtons acheivement.
Democratic Westminister Parliamentary System = British Achievement

 

Yeah, absolute . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. Scotland and England are in a voluntary union, we are one union. And I'm sure I'm not alone in finding the accusation of genocide offensive. It's simply not true, there isn't a pair of neighbouring countries in Europe which haven't warred from time to time. Like Disenfranchised says, pay more attention to your friends and less attention to "Braveheart".

 

Relations between medieval England and Scotland were no more bloody or treacherous than one would expect of two ambitious kingdoms with a shared frontier. The Scots committed their share of atrocities in England, too. If you consider yourself a highlander, be aware that nothing did more to extinguish the Gaelic tongue and 'Highland way of life' than Scottish lowlanders and the Scottish Crown.

Wales and Ireland were a bit different primarily because neither was ever finally unified.

 

I can agree with most of what you two have said except...
Braveheart.
That movie actually angered me.

I'm one of those guys who... just has to point out historical inaccuracies in movies. With the exception of 300, since I noticed "Oh, wait. This is being narrated. So it's a Spartan story. Makes sense now."
O Sparta, it's thanks to you we have silly, pointless action movies now. As you were the true creator of the pointless cliche-filled action genre.
You look to Athens and see beautiful stories filled with meaning... and look down to Sparta "Okay, there were these bunch of slaves. And one day I punched one of them so hard in the gut, all the other slaves start gripping their chests in pain. True story."
Then again, at one point I wondered if the Phoenicians created what they did simply to write down "the fish was -this- big" stories.

 

Yeah me too. Gladiator gave me an aneurysm.

 

I thought it was bad but '300' makes it look like a documentary. As did 'Troy' for that matter.

Why are so many purportedly historical films so utterly shight? How can such fascinating subject matter be made so two-dimensional, so implausible, so drained of real human drama? It narks me royal.

 

I know, it's such a shame that the history is in most cases an afterthought. Directors tend to treat history like they would a novel, changing the story at will but forgetting they're telling the story of real people and real events. Or they treat it merely as an interesting setting, neglecting the richness of historical information to tell a cliched story.

Although I must admit, 300 is one of my favourite films

 

the mod was made by an italian, and we all love so much our french "cousins", and they love us even more ! Hmm ok, maybe not

The bottom line is that, generally speaking, by popular tradition, every big nation in Europe "hates" one another. Things that happen when you fight many wars in the course of hundred of years.

 

it isn't even a film, with its constant static photos/poses... it's just a comic shown on the screen rather than on the paper.

How could Troy be historical if what we have about it is an epic poem (IE: myth).

 

It could either be historically plausible or at least faithful to the poem. I wouldn't mind having gods and leprechauns and such like in that case.

 

hehe, well if Hollywood can screw even modern (XXth century) history, mind you ancient one