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