Battlefront IV - Lords of War

[Norrefeldt]

His claim was good although his reason was not perfect. The claim for SWE having a port by the sea in any scenario is not only avoiding the trade tariffs, a more complete description of the reasons is

- this strip of land was used for export not merely to avoid the Sound due but probably more because it was a shorter road to the Sea from some parts of Sweden, for instance some parts of Bergslagen, with its iron, which was connected to this land strip via e.g. Klarälven and then lake Vänern and finally Göta Älv

- whether there were any naval military base or not is not a prerequsite in this game for having a port (from where you got this notion is a mystery); do you for instance believe there was a naval military base in Baffin Bay just because EU has ports there, they were perhaps afraid of a military attack in that area well suited for military operations

- and last but not least: Sweden did own this piece of land with its port (at a place where some 200 years after the game starts Gothenburg was founded)

Thus the existence or non-existence of the Sound due in this game has nothing to do with the fact that Sweden did own this strip of land and that it had many effects on the nations involved some of which are excellently portrayed in the game and some else not.

Besides the Sound due is partly implemented in this game by giving Sjaelland a very high tax value, only the reverse is not implemented, i.e. a reduction of trade income and an increase of price of import products for other nations.

I'm not playing in this game, but since this have been debated in the modding forums, I'd like to add another view.
Denmark had a complete stranglehold on the fortress of Älvsborg until mid 16th century. Sweden lost it in first thing in almost every war against the Danish, and for this reason never used it as a naval base until this coast became secure, since any fleet here would have been trapped. This weak spot was so well known that even if it was important for trade in peace time, it had little military value, and strongholds were built in the middle of Västergötland province, since it wasn't until the invading forces came that deep that any chance of resistence was possible. Sweden was completly unable to project any power whatsoever on the sea outside Älvsborg.
This situation fundamentally changed when Bohuslän and Halland became Swedish.

So what is the best approximation to model this? Location of ports mattter little for trade, so military reasoning far outweights civil ones in this case. Västergötland should be without a port, and Sweden shouldn't be able to use the western coast until one of the Danish/Norwegian provinces are taken. That's how it was historically. Even if Västergötland got a port by then, we cannot model that, but at least we can model the need for Sweden to take one of the Danish/Norwegian provinces to be able to access the sea in wartime.

There might be other ports that are wrongly places in this map and others, but that's not a reason in itself to add another unhistorical port.

[Mulliman]

EDIT: anyway it doesn't matter here anymore, I am not playing.

Why? Damn shame, since Portugal still has potential .

There is zero argumentation and 100% nationalism.

And yet again i must refer you to the discussion thread in the forum of he-who-must-not-be-mentioned . I have stated that i am one of the least nationalistic Swedes in existence and that i have more love for Denmark and its people.

EDIT:Well, im thrown from one position to other in this debate . Since i lack any true in-depth knowledge of the period, i decide to stand aside and trust/listen to what Daniel and Norre say .

[Daniel A]

I'm not playing in this game, but since this have been debated in the modding forums, I'd like to add another view.

All of this makes sense. The only error is the fundamental view of yours, which you share with Valas, that ports in EU are naval ports, i.e. military bases.

AFAIK there exists no evidence that supports this view. In my previous post in this threadI gave you the example of the ports in Baffin Bay. I could also tell you about many discussions of ports, e.g. conducted by Andrew T during 1.08 where e.g. ports in the Baltic where discussed and one added in the far north of the Baltic Sea (was it in Västerbotten?). They were added because ports (in the general sense) existed there in history, not because there was any naval port or base at that place.

So first prove that your view - that for any port to exist, there must have been a naval port at that place (some time during the game time frame).

I wish you good luck with that task Norre, because you will need it

[Daniel A]

why because only NAVAL ports influence the game, trading ports don't. All you guys are saying is nationalism, blah blah nationalism. Sweden must rule supreme! it sickens me...

There is zero argumentation and 100% nationalism.

Yes I agree, it appears you have really become sick.

[FAL]

All of this makes sense. The only error is the fundamental view of yours, which you share with Valas, that ports in EU are naval ports, i.e. military bases.

AFAIK there exists no evidence that supports this view. In my previous post in this threadI gave you the example of the ports in Baffin Bay. I could also tell you about many discussions of ports, e.g. conducted by Andrew T during 1.08 where e.g. ports in the Baltic where discussed and one added in the far north of the Baltic Sea (was it in Västerbotten?). They were added because ports (in the general sense) existed there in history, not because there was any naval port or base at that place.

So first prove that your view - that for any port to exist, there must have been a naval port at that place (some time during the game time frame).

I wish you good luck with that task Norre, because you will need it

Well, Norre explained that Sweden was unable to build a fleet there in the time period, so that should not be able in EU2 too since it's a historical game afterall

To reflect this, there should be no port in game. I don't know about the other cases like the Baffin bay. If one couldn't build a military fleet there, there should be no port in game.

[Valas]

All of this makes sense. The only error is the fundamental view of yours, which you share with Valas, that ports in EU are naval ports, i.e. military bases.

Naval ports are military bases, not trading ports. You seem to think that is a error but you can't prove other wise you know we are right, but you still prefer historical inaccuracy? That is favouring your own nation.

As Norrefeldt said:

There might be other ports that are wrongly places in this map and others, but that's not a reason in itself to add another unhistorical port.

There is no reason to make another error, because there allready is a error. Two errors doesn't make one right.

[FAL]

Valas,

I prefer you not to accuse other posters of nationalism. They might be wrong, but simply present facts to show this.

Otherwise we get an annoying discussion if you throw in the nationalism argument and they do then the same to you.

[Valas]

Allright I am sorry about that, I don't know a better english word for it then, it just sounds that they don't care or ignore the facts I have allready shown them. I have removed the word.

[Mulliman]

Allright I am sorry about that, I don't know a better english word for it then, it just sounds that they don't care about the facts as it is their nation, I have removed the word.

From my point of view it seems like you completely misunderstand us and instead of continuing your discussion in a civil manner, resort to ad hominem attacks.


But anyway. What stops you from continuing in this campaign? I didnt really understand .

[Norrefeldt]

All of this makes sense. The only error is the fundamental view of yours, which you share with Valas, that ports in EU are naval ports, i.e. military bases.

AFAIK there exists no evidence that supports this view. In my previous post in this threadI gave you the example of the ports in Baffin Bay. I could also tell you about many discussions of ports, e.g. conducted by Andrew T during 1.08 where e.g. ports in the Baltic where discussed and one added in the far north of the Baltic Sea (was it in Västerbotten?). They were added because ports (in the general sense) existed there in history, not because there was any naval port or base at that place.

So first prove that your view - that for any port to exist, there must have been a naval port at that place (some time during the game time frame).

As I said: "Location of ports mattter little for trade, so military reasoning far outweights civil ones in this case." I didn't say that ports are of no value to traders, a few of them are needed, but location doesn't matter. Not having a port in Västergötland won't do a shit to Sweden's trading abilities, while it will have several military effects: as a naval base, for landing troops with ease, to increase naval supply limit, for fleet consruction.
I find it clear that the EU2 effects of ports are clearly more for warfare than trade use.

I wish you good luck with that task Norre, because you will need it

Stop smarting me off with this kind of wiseguy comments, and I'll offer to do the same favour to you!

[Valas]

Mulliman,
It seems to me you and daniel A. ignore the historical facts, because it will hurt your nation, notice your not posting facts your just claiming them not to be true. I thought that was called nationalism, I didn't know it was a offending word.

I also don't understand the rest of your sentence, but I take offence to it, seeming you know I am not good at english. I also do take offence to Daniel A always using his wiseguy remarks constantly. I have told him before, and he just keeps on doing it.

[Mulliman]

I thought that was called nationalism, I didn't know it was a offending word.

As i said before:

And yet again i must refer you to the discussion thread in the forum of he-who-must-not-be-mentioned . I have stated that i am one of the least nationalistic Swedes in existence and that i have more love for Denmark and its people.

Still, nationalism is in this day and age a very strong and accusative word, simply for the havoc it has wreaked in our world.

I also don't understand the rest of your sentence, but I take offence to it, seeming you know I am not good at english.

I am simply wondering why you cant play anymore . I dont see any reason for why you shouldnt.

[Daniel A]

Well, Norre explained that Sweden was unable to build a fleet there in the time period, so that should not be able in EU2 too since it's a historical game afterall

To reflect this, there should be no port in game. I don't know about the other cases like the Baffin bay. If one couldn't build a military fleet there, there should be no port in game.

So now we have a 3rd misconception it seems. That the existence of a port on the map must be based on the ability to build "fleets" (some time) during the EU time frame.

First a detail, one should not use the word "can" in this circumstance. A fleet, whatever that is, can be built almost anywhere. If you mean the existence of a "shipyard" (or even a shipyard designed for building mans of war) in this time period, then say so and then continue to strike out most of the ports on the map.

In the game the ability to have a port and the existence of a shipyard (i.e. ability to build ships) is not differentiated from eachother. If there is a port you can build ships and vice versa. Ideally they would be differentiated but it is not and that is fact you must accept. The "shipyard" possibility you get at NT11 only increases the shipbuilding possibility, it is not a prerequsite for building ships in the game.

Thus ports (with the ability to build ships) have generally been put in all provinces where historically there was a port of some significance - regardless of

- any specific ship building capacity
- any naval base
- any ability to "project naval power"

as your side in the debate have presented as conditions for having a port in the game. If you had followed e.g. Andrew's discussions of where to put ports in the Bug forum just half a year ago or so this would have been more clear to you I believe. If not you can merely use your general knowledge or even common sense and it will be easier to understand what Paradox aimed at.

[Mulliman]

Stop smarting me off with this kind of wiseguy comments, and I'll offer to do the same favour to you!

Wiseguy comments are Daniel's nectar of life so to speak .

[Valas]

I am simply wondering why you cant play anymore . I dont see any reason for why you shouldnt.

I don't feel like playing a nation others have played.

[juv95hrn]

Juv,

Ryo put small forts in all European provinces as well, with medium forts in capitals irrespective of their historical levels. It was a bad idea all around, especially in the Americas.

I would also be in favor of cutting all the forts down to minimum, and to be honest I agree that it might be best to remove at least some of the natives for balance reasons.

I also agree that having minimum forts all over in Europe (and elsewhere), except for a few exceptions, would feel historically more correct and I think not influcence game balance in any way.

I feel that the Native Amercians of NA didn't possess a centralized government organized enough to field armies but that the native populations, that might become city citizens or turn against the colonizers, of each individual province portray much better the situation at the time.

Blancewise it should be much better to let everyone, except, very probably the Spanish, build up their own colonial empires and not just send a few thousand troops over, annex and convert readymade cities with huge troop construction capacity and forts the size of the ones in Europe.

I suggest we edit out all NA american Indians for the reasons given above. Not doing so will decrease the gaming experience and probably only be advantageous to England and maybe say France, Holland and Sweden to some extent.

[Mulliman]

I don't feel like playing a nation others have played.

Does that mean that you can never ever be subbed?
Portugal got off to a good start. You can continue its advance into the ages!

[Valas]

Does that mean that you can never ever be subbed?
Portugal got off to a good start. You can continue its advance into the ages!

No it means I will find my own sub and he can play from my instructions, I doesn't feel like my nation if I don't play them from start. If I had known you would play yesterday, at least some days in advance, I wouldn't have accepted to work late last night.

[Norrefeldt]

Thus ports (with the ability to build ships) have generally been put in all provinces where historically there was a port of some significance - regardless of

- any specific ship building capacity
- any naval base
- any ability to "project naval power"

as your side in the debate have presented as conditions for having a port in the game. If you had followed e.g. Andrew's discussions of where to put ports in the Bug forum just half a year ago or so this would have been more clear to you I believe. If not you can merely use your general knowledge or even common sense and it will be easier to understand what Paradox aimed at.

As my first post on the subject said, I wanted to give the view of the historical modding community, as an explanation to why neither of MyMap, WATK and AGCEEP have a port in Västergötland. AndrewT's port definitions were not used, and for good reasons. Thanks for including them, but this is IMO not the place to discuss it further. At least not for me, since it's outside my area of interest.

[Daniel A]

Stop smarting me off with this kind of wiseguy comments, and I'll offer to do the same favour to you!

I have given the example of Baffin Bay. I could give you numerous other examples of ports in the game where there were no naval bases - certainly not in the EU time frame, take Yukon e.g.

It is, IIRC, you who have not presented any evidence that your view correspond to the views of the producers of the game.

If you believe that you have the right to define the basis of this question as you wish, i.e. not basing it upon Paradox' intention, we are not discussing the same question. Then you are discussing how you would want the basic principle of port placement to be if you had the right to decide while I am discussing which principle Paradox applies. Perhaps this is all a misunderstanding and this is the reason?