I’ve though on one or two hypothetical British Isles-focused DLC, which would rework the Britons and Celts splitting them into these civs:
What do you think about this suggestion?
The Irish and the Scots are the same people, so having them be separate isn’t necessary. The Celts could just be renamed Gaels, and the Woad Raider renamed and reskinned to become the Kern.
Britons, on the other hand, are fine.
How about a team UU like the Gallowglass?
I think a unique technology named Gallowglass replacing Stronghold would be more fitting. Not sure what it would do yet, but it would affect the swordsman line somehow.
Unifying Irish and Scots into Gaels would also be cool. Therefore I see both this option and the topic’s one as viable options.
I think it would be cool, but this could strip the siege workshop bonus away from Gaelic/Celtic team bonus.
I don’t think it’s a good idea to make the Saxons and Normans/English the same civ since it’s like 1000+ years of history and they’re not the same people, they just happened to occupy the same land in different moments. It’s like saying that Goths are Spanish and viceversa.
I guess Scots and Irish are similar at this point although you could still justify a split I think.
Picts are their own beast and they’re the only civ that could inherit the woad raider without it being silly.
Yeah, I agree. I’ve posted a concept for a Saxons civ here before, based on pre-Norman England, since the current Britons are obviously post-Norman.
IRL brits are an amalgamation of brythonic, saxon and norman peoples, and the in-game Britons reflect that perfectly. At most you can have some civ to represent early Anglo-Saxons (and maybe some other early germanic peoples).
Medieval Scotland is literally an irish colony.
I’ve updated this topic, according to your suggestions and corrections - thanks to everyone who has been contributing to this subject!
They arent diferent peoples, they are the same people who just evolved over time amd were ruled by outsiders in the case of the early english. And I know you think thats fine (which is why you always defend the Romans) but getting so specific in some regions will just mean that everyone would need to get the same level of representation, and thats simply not doable, and we havent even gotten basic coverage of all importamt medieval regions so asking for splits like these is silly
You seem to confuse speaking about something while trying to be honest and accurate with setting an high priority to it because of a personal agenda. To me every new civ is a good civ if it fits basic criteria we all know and anyway I’m not advocating for Saxons to be added tomorrow, just pointing out that if we want to be honest, we can’t really say that Britons or Goths represent dark age Britain that well (I guess Britons a bit because of the name and Goths a bit because of a wrong UU). I guess that was the point of op and I didn’t start the thread myself, just stated my opinion based on a vague historical knowledge of it (still enough to see the issue).
Also Saxons and Picts are dark age civs which I think we can agree they’re not that represented compared to late middle ages. I just had in mind a campaign idea but current civs would not fit too well, still you won’t see me advocating against other “silly” split ideas to enforce mine.
I guess you could also just rework Britons to cover their early days like Franks do in part instead of adding Saxons although Saxons are surely not secondary in medieval history, maybe Saxons would fit more than Britons as a civ name in middle ages (?)
If I were “splitting” Britons and Celts, here’s how I’d do it:
Britons could be renamed to English, but (a) that then excludes the Welsh, and (b) it would be weird to have both English and Anglo-Saxons – so I would just leave them called Britons.
I should add I’m not actually advocating for this. I think this level of granularity is excessive. Also, it would involve adding two new infantry civs, and I think recent infantry civ designs have not been very successful.
I’d ask to stay away from any European DLC for a while. Though I’d recommend a small rework for both of the civs.
Both can get a 2nd UU. Britons one is classic - Longbow replacing Xbow. Castle UU will be Billman, an anti-cavalry Infantry but without the +1 range of kamayuk.
Celts Champion replaced by Gallowglass which is less practical as Champion unit sprite is literally inspired from Gallowglass afaik.
Militia line +1/+1 armor to represent their invention of Chain Armor. This will also accelerate the difference between WR and Champion, WR = Light armor but high speed with high attack vs Champion heavy armor, low speed and low attack.
Reasonable take, specially regarding the ethnic distinction. The Picts were their own thing or maybe unromanised Britons that were later Gaelicised by invading Scots from Ireland (around the 10th century). They’re also the only civ in middle ages for which the iconic woad raider would fit.
You could maybe name Anglo-Saxons Saxons to cover the Germanic ones too (I’m unaware of drastic differences) and in this way it would make more sense to have English instead of Britons and consequently you could split Welsh from them.
You could of course split Gaels into Scots and Irish but it’s not as important I think. You could also just name Gaels Scots tbh and if Irish are present in a scenario it wouldn’t be a big deal to have them renamed through triggers while playing as Scots.
But in general I agree that Welsh and Irish despite being the most known are not more important than Saxons and Picts (although I’m a bit biased towards dark ages and Welsh would give longshanks the variety it needs).
I’m not sure, since I don’t know as much about the continental Saxons (or “old Saxons”). My understanding is that in the early middle ages, they’d be similar enough to share the same civ – but the continental Saxons lasted longer, and later in the middle ages would have fielded knights/heavy cavalry. Perhaps it seems like a weird sticking point, but I think a civ with good cavalry would not feel like Anglo-Saxons, whereas a civ with bad cavalry would not feel like continental Saxons.
Or maybe just name this civ “Angles” and no mention of Saxons?
Alternatively, I would add just Saxons as an early germanic umbrella (being the western counterpart to the Goths).