I think England would be best to start in 886 (for Alfred the first King of the English) or in 927 (for Athelstan the first King of England) and have them not flip Normandy. Also have Alfred as the leaderhead (I think he is the only Anglo-Saxon option available).
What about representing the Capetian-Plantagenet rivalry + the Hundred Year's War then? That (and the fact that England is currently no real threat to AI or human France) is really the bigger issue IMO.
I think England would be best to start in 886 (for Alfred the first King of the English) or in 927 (for Athelstan the first King of England) and have them not flip Normandy. Also have Alfred as the leaderhead (I think he is the only Anglo-Saxon option available).
What about representing the Capetian-Plantagenet rivalry + the Hundred Year's War then? That (and the fact that England is currently no real threat to AI or human France) is really the bigger issue IMO.
Another concern I was thinking about is the Norse civs and their UHVs. Especially the Danish.
Currently everything is set up in a way, that the early Viking conquests in England do not mess up the upcoming English civ.
EDIT:
Just to be clear, I'm not against updating England in some form or another. I also dislike some aspects of its current representation.
But we should keep all these interconnected things in mind when thinking about making such a huge change to a civ.
I'd say England should start in 802AD with the accession of Egbert in Wessex. Then it has to deal with the Viking raids and the Great Heathen Army (big barbarian spawn) before going on the unite England. Similar to how France starts as the Franks, then unites France. First UHV to unite England by 927AD.
Would also mean that when the Norwegians and Danes are doing their conquering and raiding, there is an actual civ to face off against in Britain, rather than easy individual indie cities. Yes that will mess up England a bit, but it will have time to recover. Also means the Danes can have a UHV to conquer England by 1016AD (Cnut).
Normandy could then be a separate civ, emerging in 987AD, with Duke Richard II, and having to conquer, rather than flip, England. First UHV to conquer England by 1066AD. AI Normandy would get scripted units to invade England with as part of this, which would also make it a bigger thorn in the side of France.
It would involve a degree of 'what if' in the UHVs for the two realms, and obviously for the player only one would survive. But it would better reflect the reality, rather than 'England' springing into existence from the date of the Norman conquest.
Swarbs idea sound good to me, both more historical and more interesting for all Civs involved. I think someone else had previously said England's UHVs were too hard, so maybe it is good they are reworked anyway.
How would it look like without a full Normandy civ included?
I have a hard time imagining how could it work with a full civ: Normandy would have shared 2nd and 3rd UHVs with Anglo-Saxon England?
I also imagine that this would just lead to Normandy and England coexisting for a long time - just as France and Burgundy do. And while I don't consider the latter a problem, I do for Normandy/England.
How would it look like without a full Normandy civ included?
I have a hard time imagining how could it work with a full civ: Normandy would have shared 2nd and 3rd UHVs with Anglo-Saxon England?
Without a full Normandy civ it would probably just be a large barbarian stack of Norman units spawning in England in 1066AD. Much like the Seljuks are currently represented for the ERE.
I don't think the 2nd and 3rd UHVs would necessarily be shared - England's current first UHV is very much a Norman UHV, based on the interactions of Normandy with the French crown. Also control of Scotland in that UHV is ahistorical imo, considering England never controlled Scotland fully or effectively during that period.
I would suggest the following:
The English
Spawn 802AD, Wessex as core
1st UHV - Unite England by 927AD (control all English provinces) by conquering the indie cities already there and
2nd UHV - Build four Catholic monasteries and two Catholic cathedrals by 1066AD (Ripon Cathedral and New Minster)
3rd UHV - Unite Britain by 1200AD (The ahistorical one, control England, Wales, Ireland and Scotland)
The Normans
Spawn 987AD, Normandy as core
1st UHV - Conquer England by 1066AD
2nd UHV - The Crown (1st English UHV, excluding Scotland)
3rd UHV - Build 7 colonies and be the first to enter the Industrial Age (Combination of 2nd and 3rd English UHV)
There is a risk that Normandy and England could coexist for a long time, however this could be addressed by giving the AI Normans a big stack outside London in c1040AD and then a big stability hit after 1066AD if England still exists, causing them to collapse back into an indie city which is conquered by France. That's ultimately what would have happened if WtC had failed at Hastings - Normandy would have remained a French vassal.
One thing about polish commonwealth part of UHV, it doesn't count vassals. This lead to pretty ahistorical situation of necessity to conquer Lithuania to achieve it.
So after returning to this mod I decided to post some of my thoughts about things I find most problematic.
Number one problem is stability. It's way to easy to have enormous 30+ cities empire, this IMHO is effect of "older" stability system and buildings granting +1 stability when constructed. My solution here is to well "borrow" stability system from Dawn of Civ and modify it somewhat. So core/peripheral population and five stability categories. I would only change expansion category to have possibility of positive stability if you stay in core territory. Of course all stability bonuses from buildings needs to go away.
Secondary problem is endgame. Latter techs lack buildings, wonders or options. There solution is simple put more things in endgame techs.
There are some other minor concerns as adjusting civics, buildings and units somewhat but that less important that those two.
I think Swarbs idea is pretty good, particularly the English UHVs. Changing the English UHVs might be good anyway as I am fairly sure I read previously on here complaints that the English UHVs were too hard.
Personally I think the Norman UHVs should reflect the fact they were very much soldiers of fortune, going wherever some quick money could be made and land gained. They operated in France, England, Ireland, Spain, Italy, Turkey and the Levant amongst other places.
1st UHV - Norman Conquests - Conquer England and Sicily by 1100 AD
2nd UHV - Crusade - Control the Levant by 1150 AD
3rd UHV - Soldiers of fortune - Have 5000 gold by 1200 AD
It may be a mute point, as I don't think there are any plans to add any more Civs. But either way having the English spawn in the year they were conquered by the Franco-Norse Normans makes not a lick of sense!!
Personally I think the Norman UHVs should reflect the fact they were very much soldiers of fortune, going wherever some quick money could be made and land gained. They operated in France, England, Ireland, Spain, Italy, Turkey and the Levant amongst other places.
1st UHV - Norman Conquests - Conquer England and Sicily by 1100 AD
2nd UHV - Crusade - Control the Levant by 1150 AD
3rd UHV - Soldiers of fortune - Have 5000 gold by 1200 AD
I think those UHVs are a bit too broad and focus more on the Norman people than an individual Norman civ. It would be like giving one set of UHVs to cover France, Burgundy and Germany on the basis that they were all part of the 'Frankish' civ. They're also very short - the Norman game would last only 100 turns
For a meaningful gameplay experience we need to recognise that the Norman people split into multiple influential civs, including the Franco-Normans, the Sicilio-Normans and the Normans who accompanied the Crusades. The 1st UHV is also already included in the Norwegian UHV to conquer the parts of the world which came under Norman influence.
Pretty sure that's the case. Which IMO makes an even stronger case for adding in the Duchy of Normandy separate from France and England. After all, Robert Guiscard started as Count of Apulia and Calabria, then his descendants conquered the Emirate of Sicily to form the kindgom, similar to how Rollo started as Duke of Normandy then William conquered England.
Pretty sure that's the case. Which IMO makes an even stronger case for adding in the Duchy of Normandy separate from France and England. After all, Robert Guiscard started as Count of Apulia and Calabria, then his descendants conquered the Emirate of Sicily to form the kindgom, similar to how Rollo started as Duke of Normandy then William conquered England.
Not really? It would only be a good analogy if there was a separate civ for the Emirate of Sicily or the southern Lombard duchies or something. This actually corresponds to the current England setup pretty well, in that the "native" states are represented only as independent cities and the civ only spawns when the Normans invade and unite the area.
Not really? It would only be a good analogy if there was a separate civ for the Emirate of Sicily or the southern Lombard duchies or something. This actually corresponds to the current England setup pretty well, in that the "native" states are represented only as independent cities and the civ only spawns when the Normans invade and unite the area.
England was united way before it was conquered by the Normans. Aethelstan (924-939) was the first king to control all of the lands of current England, he even launched invasions into Scotland (this was to become popular hobby of English kings)!
When William of Normandy invaded England, he was fighting King Harold, who was the King of a United England. An united English kingdom predated the Norman conquest by a substantial period of time.
England was united way before it was conquered by the Normans. Aethelstan (924-939) was the first king to control all of the lands of current England, he even launched invasions into Scotland (this was to become popular hobby of English kings)!
When William of Normandy invaded England, he was fighting King Harold, who was the King of a United England. An united English kingdom predated the Norman conquest by a substantial period of time.
He didn't 'unite' England and Normandy, he conquered England. The Angevin Empire was a composite state, the Kings of England controlled part of France through a sensechal and various vassals. It was in no way a single 'united' realm.
What's your argument anyway? You think Norman Sicily should be a separate civ but Norman Normandy shouldn't? Why do you think that should be the case, given that you want both of them to take control of what you claim should be indie cities?
Ultimately it remains a massive historical anachronism in the game that most major civs spawn with a small core and have to conquer their historical realm (France doesn't control France, Germany doesn't control the HRE, Spain doesn't control Spain etc) whilst 'England' just flips and settles their core like there was nothing there.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
