I think in the Battle for the Balkans stream Johan said the game would go up to 1820 like EU3 did (though there was a lot of "I think" sort of stuff in there so it might have been a number pulled out just because of EU3), so that's more than 20.The US gets less than twenty years in the game and Gran Columbia gets zero.
I think in the Battle for the Balkans stream Johan said the game would go up to 1820 like EU3 did (though there was a lot of "I think" sort of stuff in there so it might have been a number pulled out just because of EU3), so that's more than 20.
Either way I'm immediately editing the game to extend out closer to 1900 to give the colonial revolters some time to be relevant on the world stage.
Interesting idea, but i'm afraid of this feature taking away the sandbox aspect of the game.
Netherlands does not beat Sweden's achievement list:This is true. But alike Sweden the United Provinces were one of the Europe's (and even global) superpowers and main players both economically, culturally, military (Maurician reform that was a real revolution in warfare) and politically. Same could be said about Burgundy for the 15th century until the unfortunate death of Duke Charles or about the role of Venice in the 15th-16th centuries. But I cannot say the same seriously about Sweden despite its great role in TYW and the Baltic politics, even prior to Poltava.
Really, I like the Swedish history and such but placing it among the 8 most important countries for late medieval and early modern history is just a big exaggeration.
What did Netherlands do besides establishing a few colonies and break free from Spain?
Actually, Gustavus continued the ideas Maurice of Orange had started. As for the Netherlands:Would be awesome if you could squeeze in the Borgia dynasty somewhere so if you played as Papal States you could reform into an atheist monarchy run by Cesare!
Netherlands does not beat Sweden's achievement list:
- 1) Invented linear warfare tactics which made Tercio obsolete with fire-and-movement tactics that also included light artillery and shock cavalry reforms unlike the Dutch one that mainly concerned just infantry (inspired by the Dutch reform, but it was completed by Sweden)
- 2) Saved Protestantism and kept back German unification for another 200 years, before Swedish intervention in the 30 Years War the Habsburgs was rolling up everything in its' way, including precious Brandenburg/Denmark/Bohemia. Has Gustavus Adolphus not landed in Germany today's Europe would not have been recognizable.
- 3) Faced and defeated the Habsburg dynasty which means winning in a war against Austria, Spain and the Holy Roman Empire all at the same time whilst simultaniously defeating Poland and Denmark several times during the 30 Years War.
What did Netherlands do besides establishing a few colonies and break free from Spain?
What did Netherlands do besides establishing a few colonies and break free from Spain?
As for Sweden in the 30 Years War: it relied heavily on French money and suffered some major defeats and was almost forced out of the war if not for the French intervention.
No it wasn't. Most of the war was funded by plunder, only a sliver of cost was covered by French subsidises. Even at the end of the war the Swedish army was one of the most experience and well equipped in Europe, and even in the late 1640s Swedish troops were fighting as far south as Bohemia (Prague was plundered by Swedish forces in 1648). Never were they close to being pushed out of the HRE.
Wikipedia has a pretty good list of the important battles, plenty of them fought very late into the war: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_intervention_in_the_Thirty_Years'_War#Battles
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_Years'_War (read midway to Swedish intervention.)Wikipedia said:Like Christian IV before him, Gustavus Adolphus came to aid the German Lutherans, to forestall Catholic aggression against his homeland, and to obtain economic influence in the German states around the Baltic Sea; he was also concerned about the growing power of the Holy Roman Empire, and, like Christian IV, was heavily subsidized by Cardinal Richelieu, the Chief Minister of Louis XIII of France, and by the Dutch.[43]
Actually, Nördlingen almost lost Sweden all its gains in Germany. See Peter Wilson's Europe's TragedyNo it wasn't. Most of the war was funded by plunder, only a sliver of cost was covered by French subsidises. Even at the end of the war the Swedish army was one of the most experience and well equipped in Europe, and even in the late 1640s Swedish troops were fighting as far south as Bohemia (Prague was plundered by Swedish forces in 1648). Never were they close to being pushed out of the HRE.
Wikipedia has a pretty good list of the important battles, plenty of them fought very late into the war: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_intervention_in_the_Thirty_Years'_War#Battles
Actually, Nördlingen almost lost Sweden all its gains in Germany. See Peter Wilson's Europe's Tragedy
Yes it was.
Don't wanna argue here, but Sweden was heavily subsidised and paid by both France and Netherlands. Fighting capability on the other hand is another story and indeed the Swedish Army proved to be one of excellent quality. And since you cited a wikipedia article here it is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_Years'_War (read midway to Swedish intervention.)
To quote Captain Gars from earlier in this thread
"400.000 out of a yearly cost between 10 and 30 million is not really financing it."
Then he's clearly wrong.
View attachment 84515
1/4th of the state budget is a whole lot more than just "financing". Deal with it.
Source:Muscovy and Sweden in the Thirty Years' War 1630-1635
by B. F. Porshnev
Even the source you provided disagrees with your position. If we take your numbers, that you seemingly got from google books library, as the truth then it clearly shows that Sweden mainly funded itself.
And a problem with only looking at the state budget is that it will ignore costs and incomes not related to it.