I see that, but Denmark might also have other worries in the South and East anyway. Still, it might be as good as it can get. I reckon we should just get going with a game with pretty good teams

With England and Scotland as teammates, they have 2 choices - attack France/Burgundy, or attack Norway/Denmark. They have only 2 neighbors. Make peace with one, attack the other.

France/Burgundy can't do that as they have more neighbors. Norway/Denmark the same. They have the German powers to contend with somewhat.

Basically it's such a safe defensive spot and gives them a very linear game.

Breaking them up scatters the whole "my team only has 2 neighbors" thing possibly.

I would argue that a Portugal/Castile pair would also be interested in considering England/Scotland a neighbour.

If you break up Scandinavia and surrounds into slightly more clumped teams as well (Nor/Swe; Den/BB; TO/LO) you add in another potential neighbour for the Brits.

But yeah, in a world with Nor/Den and Eng/Scot, then Scot/Nor and Eng/Den would be an improvement

Strongly against a pair of England and Scotland. I've been part of that alliance before, and it is overpowered.

Are you sure it wasn't because you're so brilliant kevdog? ;)

Hah! I wish! It's because the game unfolds exactly as drano explained. In my case, England blew up France/Burgundy and both made initial peace with Norway/Denmark and then Scotland led the charge on them next. Then it was up to England to intrude on the Continent and Scotland to fight off any Spanish forces and charge north towards Russia.
My point is, England and Scotland have a pretty clear best strategy that makes that part of the board too predictable.

I guess Eng/Den and Sco/Nor work then

-Denmark/England
-Scotland/Norway
-Sweden/Livonian Order
-France/Burgundy
-Brandenburg/Teutonic Order
-Milan/Savoy
-Switzerland/Bavaria
-Austria/Hungary
-Bohemia/Saxony
-Poland/Lithuania
-Castile/Portugal
-Pope/Tlemcen
-Tunis/Naples
-Morocco/Aragon
-Ottomans/Genoa
-GH/QQ
-Mamluks/Venice
-Novgorod/Muscovy

is the updated list ^^

But yeah, dibs on not being in the UK or allied to them now; I think they've been made from on the stronger end, but in no way unfairly so, to significantly underpowered in terms of ability to actually usefully function as a team :/

@Mouse the England/Denmark pair is still a really strong team. England is the highest rated country on the map by performance score while 2/3 of the solo victories ever won on this map were won by Denmark.

I think it absolutely makes sense to balance out pairing two powerful countries like this by making it a bit harder for them to coordinate, especially since it makes the map more interesting than an England/Scotland alliance that will just secure the British isles immediately and then invade the Continent opportunistically by attacking whichever neighbor seems weak.

@DeeZee -

Just a reminder that both solos by Denmark were in gunboat. That doesn't at all mean it translates to a full press game. Yes Denmark is a good position, but not as powerful as 2 of 3 solos might suggest.

That said, I'm going to be THAT guy and suggest that Scot/Nor and Eng/Den might even be worse.

Doesn't this force Scotland into fighting Eng/Nor? I suppose Scotland could sail for Iberia, but that's a fairly long stretch and would leave the weak and stretched out and easy to stab and would be hard to project enough force.

Realistically, wouldn't they just attack Eng/Den since they are 2 of his 3 neighbors, and his third is his teammate?

Maybe there's no real good solution if teammates have to be neighbors?

What if we did something like England/France, Burgundy/Denmark, Scotland/Norway? It would make a decent triangle like the one I proposed for the southeastern corner.

Like, Scotland could conceivably make peace with England and go help Norway fight in Scandinavia; England/France could conceivably go down to Iberia, Burgundy/Denmark could conceivably focus on the mainland.

In this situation, the presumed teams were Scot/Norway and Eng/Denmark.

If Scotland were to go help Denmark, he'd either:

1) have to go all the way to northern Russia, leaving himself exceedingly strung out and exposed
or 2) attack Denmark...who would be England's teammate.

At least in the pairing of Eng/Den and Scot/Norway, I do'nt see how war between those two teams doesn't happen.

England France are also both 4 center powers at the start and are the natural counterbalances to each other. Pairing them up seems even worse than an England / Scotland team

True that France starts with 4, but also France stands in the expansion paths of pretty much everybody. While it may be slightly stronger numbers-wise, I don't think it is geographically, and at the very least it does not make an England/Scotland war guaranteed, and it does not leave two powers right next to the British Isles in somewhat questionable political-geographical starts.

@Drano what do you think?

i like AJManso4 idea
i am in if have a place(only ER)

I don't actually agree. Geographically, the issue with England is that it only has 1 of 3 ways to expand - Scotland, Scandinavia, France. Scandinavia is theoretically possible, but no one ever does it until Scotland is eliminated.

Allying England with either France or Scotland basically makes their gameplan super easy - take out the other side, safe in the fact that your other side is clear. In a non-team game, this is balanced by the fact that other people know this, and will react accordingly. Scotland / France being the classical countering alliance to England.

But in a straight up Scotland vs England, England surely just wins provided bother players are equally competent. They have an additional unit, which becomes 2 additional units after the first year.

> take out the other side, safe in the fact that your other side is clear.

...yes, that would be the *entire point* of a team game.

If that's true, then why are so many people objecting to the England Scotland pair? England France is that but better.

Sure France might have more options, but realistically, England's path of expansion is still set in stone, and England was always the problem.

What about Scotland and France vs. England and Denmark?

As far as I can tell, the core issues are that England will usually defeat Scotland in a head to head contest, and then a power that controls the British isles is safely able to opportunistically invade either Scandinavia or France while those powers are tied up in other conflicts, especially in Germany. Finally, Scotland only really neighbors England and Norway, so am alliance between those two or between Scotland and Norway leaves Scotland only one path to expand.

France is more able to help Scotland against England than any other power. As a result, England and Norway can either commit fully to fighting Scotland, in which case Scotland is on more of an even footing since England needs to use its builds from Normandy to defend against France rather than doubling down on its position, or else make peace with Scotland/France and invade Scandinavia, forfeiting full control of the British isles. It also gives Scotland

*It also gives Scotland an alternate path to expand by invading Norway, potentially in alliance with Denmark if their respective teammates England and France have made peace.

The suggestion is not bad! But then who is Burgundy paired with?

However, I do think that the optimal strategy by far in this case is for England's team and Scotland's team to ally still, but this time they also have France and Denmark on their side, which makes their invasion of mainland Europe and Scandinavia even easier...while yes they do have to stab each other eventually, it will end up being very shaky for Norway, Burgundy, etc.

If we're starting to worry about optimal alliances between teams, then this whole process becomes rather pointless. Like we might as well say the african nations all ally and they crush the world, and that'd be true.

The counterbalance to OP alliances (formed opportunistically, not such as in a team game) in classic has always been a banding together of other nations realizing what's happening to crush that in turn (such as western triple vs eastern triple or Juggernaut).

Let's focus on giving that area of the board the right dynamic rather than worrying about their diplomacy which would be 1) player dependent 2) has actual diplomatic counters.

I also think that is the best solution for this.

-Denmark/England
-Scotland/Norway
-France/Burgundy

is probably the best solution so far. It's not perfect, but we can't really get that sticking so closely to the must be near each other rule.

Maybe. But maybe England/Burgundy, France/Scotland , Norway/Denmark

Norway Denmark I find just quite important to be in a team, as they have the options of Germany, Sweden, the Isles, or all three. And are quite overextended and dont necessarily border one another

Whilst Scotland/France and England/Burgundy are in a fight to the death essentially, in quite the even battle. Diplomacy will play the victor of it

Also its important to note that Sweden can absolutely crush an isolated Norway/Denmark, so its important for them to be together

Halt's suggestion of
-Denmark/England
-Scotland/Norway
-France/Burgundy

Also works fine, but personally from my experience in Europa Renovatio, the deciding factor is that most likely Sweden will just knock out the isolated Norway then Denmark, leaving Scotland and England quite isolated