Edinburgh instead of Inverness

[Rod]

Hi,

sorry but York doesnt work for me.

If you want two cities in Northern UK than it should be Manchester/Edinburgh.

Maybe it is best to have no independent cities in UK.
But what about following representation of the British Celts.

Just put two cottages/hamlets/villages on the map and make two labels with the Celtic Names.

This could work with many Ancient cities in RFC.

I imagine something like the Unique features from FFH for RFC. In this case you can have a Unique feature Stonehenge as well.

 

[Úmarth]

I think York makes more sense than Manchester. Manchester was indeed an important industrial city and York was not, but Manchester didn't exist before the 14th century and it was only a minor town before the 18th. York on the other hand was been England's "second city" from Roman times (it was the provincial capital of Britannia inferior) until the Middle Ages (the Archbishop of York being the head of one of England's two ecclesiastical provinces and second only to the Archbishop of Canterbury in the south). And in the meantime it was the capital of Northumbria, a semi-independent state passed around between the English, Scots and Danes until the Norman conquest. And you could easily solve the problem of York's irrelevance in the industrial era by having its name change to Leeds which is on the same tile, was an important industrial centre, and is currently almost as large as Manchester.

 

[mitsho]

Why do we need a independent city in Britain that flips to England at all? I've always wondered. Better to just give more settlers for variance in cities (there doesn't need to be the same cities all the time) or an independent scotland, but more units to England/Vikings.

 

[Ekolite]

Agree completely. I don't think Scotland should even flip to the English, and before a certain time it should be an area of reasonably poor stability for them. Scotland should get an independent city, but not until after England appears. That way it gives England a fun little task of uniting Britain before it can think about colonies.

 

[scu98rkr]

This last suggestion seems the best.

Do the vikings ever even capture Inverness anymore ?

They rarely seem to colonise iceland anymore either.

 

[Lone Wolf]

They rarely seem to colonise iceland anymore either.

The Vikings sometimes bug out and refuse to train settlers. Rhye is as confused as to the reasons of it as we are.

and before a certain time it should be an area of reasonably poor stability for them. Scotland should get an independent city, but not until after England appears. That way it gives England a fun little task of uniting Britain before it think about colonies.

I don't think that it would add anything to the game besides difficulties to the AI.

 

[Ekolite]

I think it would add realism to the game.

 

[killerkebab]

I think it would add realism to the game.

Extra realism doesn't necessarily translate into extra fun

 

[mitsho]

Yes of course, but all the other civ have to quarrel on their mainland (from Portugal to Russia), so why not the English? But I asked for a reason, so I'm not totally opposed to the way it is now. Is it because of the AI? You could always have them flip later on... ;-) Is it for the Vikings so they have something to capture and then loose again?

But of course, the situation on the mainland is as well far from being historical, so it doesn't matter all that much.

 

[Lone Wolf]

Yes of course, but all the other civ have to quarrel on their mainland (from Portugal to Russia),

Portugal and Netherlands are special cases, most other European civs have got ample room to expand. I don't think that English AI needs a nerf - if anything it needs a boost.

 

[The Q-Meister]

Yes English AI needs to be encouraged to expand and specifically to be much more aggressive in colonization, I understand this is easier said than done however.

 

[Lone Wolf]

Yes English AI needs to be encouraged to expand and specifically to be much more aggressive in colonization, I understand this is easier said than done however.

I think it shouldn't find any cities in the USA spawn zone except New York, for roleplay purposes. And it shouldn't declare war on the American flip. Also, it needs higher settler map values for Indian cities, although that would help only 600AD England.

 

[civ_king]

I think it shouldn't find any cities in the USA spawn zone except New York, for roleplay purposes. And it shouldn't declare war on the American flip. Also, it needs higher settler map values for Indian cities, although that would help only 600AD England.

I wish it made Philadelphia instead of NY, so you don't need Washington...

 

[blizzrd]

Do the vikings ever even capture Inverness anymore ?

They rarely seem to colonise iceland anymore either.

I've seen both often enough.

 

[Rod]

Agree completely. I don't think Scotland should even flip to the English, and before a certain time it should be an area of reasonably poor stability for them. Scotland should get an independent city, but not until after England appears. That way it gives England a fun little task of uniting Britain before it can think about colonies.

I like it a lot ! It does add realism.

 

[Dumanios]

Besides,who ever heard of the Scots willingly becoming British?

 

[The Q-Meister]

I don't think that it would add anything to the game besides difficulties to the AI.

I agree with Lone Wolf here.

I'm afraid AI England if presented with too strong a challenge at home would start to feel surrounded by enemies and decide to turtle up and tone down colonizing even more than they already do.

Sure it would be more historical but if you think about it, almost all the European civs start off with nice, open places to settle with virtually no resistance despite it being ahistorical:

Spain doesn't fight with the Caliphate of Cordoba for Southern Spain as it is right there to be settled.
France doesn't fight a 100 Years war with England for Brittany and Gascony.
Germany...wowsers! The Kaiser could only wish unifying all of Central Europe was that easy!

 

[Lone Wolf]

Exactly. If we add independent Scotland, we should also have an independent Poland, Hungary, Burgundy, etc.

Just put two cottages/hamlets/villages on the map and make two labels with the Celtic Names.

Cottages are OK, but no labels. They are fugly.

 

[Úmarth]

Besides,who ever heard of the Scots willingly becoming British?

Erm, the Scots have always been British. And historically the two Kingdoms of the Great Britain were united under a Scottish king:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_of_the_Crowns

 

[scu98rkr]

Well why bother having a city there at all ?

Is it so the Romans can conqueror it ?

It would be better if the city was Londinium if for that reason.