Scandinavian Balance and Tordenskjold

Originally posted by Kong Skjold
However it does make you wonder that Sweden always becomes the ruler of Scandinavia when the creators of the game is Swedish! Had I (and I have'nt even got the skills) made the game the Kalmar union might have a tendency of being permanent)

Click to expand...

Yes, lots of people have commented on this.

I actually do not think it was necessarily done on purpose. There are two ways it might have arisen by accident:

1. The programmers obviously have to make some decisions about which historical leaders should and should not be included in the game. This is a very subjective process, because it is based mostly on which leaders are well-known---that is, which ones the programmers have heard of. This is why, say, France has more leaders than, say, Bavaria, even though they were both in existence for the whole EU2 period and probably had the same number of leaders, at least if you adjust for population---the French leaders are just more famous because France was a major nation. But with Sweden, there is a lower threshold for which leaders are well-known, because the programmers are from Sweden and have heard of all the Swedish leaders. And indeed, many people have complained that the problem with Sweden is that it has too many leaders. So the programmers may inadvertantly be overestimating the importance of the Swedish leaders.

2. One complaint people have made about all major nations is that their AI does not work well. Possibly Sweden's AI is just better, because more work was put into it. It is quite plausible that some of the Swedish programmers made a special effort to do a good job with Sweden, without necessarily meaning for it to overpower Denmark-Norway. In that sense, Sweden is not overpowered, it is just that the other countries' AI's are not as powerful as we might like. (Note, however, that I am not saying they should be fixed; Johan has already worked entirely too hard on this game.)

(Disclaimer: Before submitting this post, I read over the rules. I do not believe this post constitutes a violation of Rule 19, which states in part that posters may not comment on the actions of Paradox staff. However, if I am wrong, I apologize.)

I don't think that rule 19 was saying that you can't comment on game features. The mods are active here in moving threads around and deleting posts (more so than I'd prefer, actually), and don't want to have to deal with people screaming "mod abuse" every time they do anything. Rule 19 gives a rule against this, so that they can point to that rule and ban someone who is constantly whining about the mods.

Perhaps you haven't seen forums that are really bad about this. In some cases, it's because the mods are ridiculous; here, they're at least friendly and consistent, and know what's going on on the forums. Sony's forum mods for one game I played, for example, were completely clueless and seemed to think that moderating a forum consisted of stopping by once every few days to see if the forum still worked, and then banning people erratically (that's not just sour grapes; they never banned me). And, of course, filtering words like "black" and "white" for fear that they could be used to make racist statements. Yes, they actually did that for a while, and I'm not making that up.

What, like "I own a black cat" or "I drive a white car"?

Also, Sweden's not really overpowered I feel, just Denmark ever-so-slightly under.

I can't speak with hard statistics, but I'd say about a third of the time I see Denmark totally owning the Swedes (with another third the Swedes in Copenhagen, and another third of stalemate--which sounds about right). And just every so often they DO make Kalmar permanent. Granted, one does have a point that they should be just about equal, with Denmark being richer and probably having a bigger navy, and Sweden having better leaders and probably having a bigger army.

Denmark's biggest problem isn't Sweden, in my experience, but getting involved in multipolar wars in north Germany which all seem to wind up with Jutland being occupied by foreigners--sometimes not even near-foreigners, but countries like Spain, Austria, etc.

Of course, there was that one time I played as Sweden and England diploannexed Denmark. Honestly, that just pissed me off.

Hm. You know, I'm actively considering now writing an event each for the involved parties to give them core shields on all Scandinavia if they can hack the conquest... something like Denmark owns Svealand, they gain all Sweden's cores, and vice versa. Maybe even a third event for Norway, if things go REALLY pear-shaped...

not historical in any way those events you mention but would be rewarding for the scandinavian AI's.

Re: Re: Scandinavian Balance and Tordenskjold

Originally posted by Lachlan
(Disclaimer: Before submitting this post, I read over the rules. I do not believe this post constitutes a violation of Rule 19, which states in part that posters may not comment on the actions of Paradox staff. However, if I am wrong, I apologize.)

Click to expand...

Fear not!

That rule is concerning your behaviour towards the moderators/admins of this forum regarding actions taken here. Discussions of game features (and possible flaws) are not only allowed - it's encouraged!

(Now, if you start calling me names for closing a thread or something we can discuss rule 19 again... )

I believe the main problem with the DAN-NOR/SWE balance is twofold:
1. The AI is not very good at handling navies - With Denmark having all these islands and a Norway across the Skagerak they have problems getting their troops around (they get stuck on Gotland or similar )
2. The Swedish provinces are a tad bit too rich from the beginning, allowing them more money and manpower than they had historically.

Re: Re: Scandinavian Balance and Tordenskjold

Originally posted by Lachlan
Yes, lots of people have commented on this.

2. One complaint people have made about all major nations is that their AI does not work well. Possibly Sweden's AI is just better, because more work was put into it. It is quite plausible that some of the Swedish programmers made a special effort to do a good job with Sweden, without necessarily meaning for it to overpower Denmark-Norway. In that sense, Sweden is not overpowered, it is just that the other countries' AI's are not as powerful as we might like. (Note, however, that I am not saying they should be fixed; Johan has already worked entirely too hard on this game.)

Click to expand...

About AI, Sweden have the great benefit that they are landlocked and as most people know the more landlocked a nation is, the better the AI performs. Denmark on the other hand is to fragmented. That together with the mentioned wars with German countries mean that Sweden mostly end up getting on top. In the games I played it is almost always because Denmark have annexed a couple of german minors that they lose to Sweden, they get involved in all to many wars.

KB: not historical in any way those events you mention but would be rewarding for the scandinavian AI's.

Click to expand...

Oh, and me, too!

Or would typing just "Alba" into the F12 menu save me the time? Heheh.

I've had some thoughts on what would make Sweden less powerfull early on...
Reducing the tax values for the Swedish provinces, having events gradually giving the values back from the rise of Gustav Vasa and onwards.
Not having ugric culture from the start... while Finland had been a part of Sweden for a couple of centuries in 1419, the finnish provinces didn't take much part in the breaking away from the Kalmar union to my knowledge. Along that same line CB shields for Finland could be removed. Both culture and shields should be given back during the reign of Gustav Vasa or his sons.
Another thing is that the 1400's for Sweden are usually pretty peaceful internally... more events depicting the political mess that was Sweden during that time would remedy that.

On the other end, Denmark needs to be less aggressive in northern Germany... they are always weakened by those wars and usually end up with a massive BB for annexing and re-annexing german minors.

Originally posted by Kong Skjold

Tordenskjold?
I am also wondering why Peter Wessel aka Tordenskjold has the 4/3/3 stats. To my knowledge he earned the name Tordenskjold because he was a brilliant naval admiral. Firepower and shock value 3 is good, but not excelent! Its is dissapointing to see that the gretest naval hero of Norway and Denmark is'nt the best naval leader at Denmark disposal, also it is disapointing that he is no more than mediocre in EU II. Another thing that puzzles me is that his movement is 4. To my recollection he had problems controlling the larger ships, and commanded his fleet from a smaller vessel (This I am not 100% sure of). What ever the entire thruth of the matter is, does it not seem a bit strange that he is a better navigator than fighter in the game, when history tells us otherwise? I would propose that he where a 2/4/4 instead of a 4/3/3! If you've got any comments I'd like to her them!

Click to expand...

I agree its kind of disapointing that the ONE famous danish military commander here in Denmark is reduced to a almost less than avarage commander.....

u can even buy a box of matches named after him and with his portrait on the front! - how cool is that?

Well, it is true that Tordenskjold (Thunder-shield in English ... no clue why you'd call a war hero that ...) was pretty much the only war hero that Denmark had in the EUII period, but obviously that alone doesn't make him a GREAT commander too. Also his most famous victory was not in the water but on land (the story of him fooling the Swedes into believing that he had landed with a major occupying force by letting the same soldiers walk around the Swedish defensive position until the Danes had blisters under their feet (or almost ).)

Anyway, he might be our best man, but that doesn't make him impressive by definition ... just like being a Swedish warrior king doesn't automatically make you a 6/6/5/1 commander (as the developers appearently thinks) ... true Gustav II Adolf had much succes, and he did achieve some great victories, but I have a hard time seeing him as just as impressive as Napoleon. The latter revolutionized warfare (much like the German blitzkrieg did), Gustav just did well - very well certainly - but enough to be considered Napoleons equal? Well, I think my view is expressed clearly.
Also, I feel that the Swedes has an impressive amount of leaders ... not that I doubt they existed - but considering how many is NOT given to their neighbours (we Danes especially, of course) I would not feel it unfair to remove a few of the Swedes ...

Originally posted by Sikker
... true Gustav II Adolf had much succes, and he did achieve some great victories, but I have a hard time seeing him as just as impressive as Napoleon. The latter revolutionized warfare (much like the German blitzkrieg did), Gustav just did well - very well certainly - but enough to be considered Napoleons equal? Well, I think my view is expressed clearly.
Also, I feel that the Swedes has an impressive amount of leaders ... not that I doubt they existed - but considering how many is NOT given to their neighbours (we Danes especially, of course) I would not feel it unfair to remove a few of the Swedes ...

Click to expand...

G II A did revolutionize warfare... but that is not enough, I feel, to give him those stats. He was a good field commander but certainly no Napoleon. The swedish victories under G II A were mostly due to the modern tactics they used (at Lützen where he first met an equal enemy he was killed and the battle was basically a draw even if the imperial forces withdrew). The swedish warrior kings from GIIA to Karl XII lead their armies on horse-back and often were in the middle of the battle, which basically means their greatest value was as morale boosters. The king was annointed (sp?) by god, and if the king is riding first into battle, how can we loose? This saved the day many times. The swedish warrior kings should have high MIL values and some of them should possibly have high leader values in some areas (maneuvre, shock or fire) but not in all at once.

Re: Tordenskjold and coreprovinces

Originally posted by Kong Skjold

On the subject of adding cores to all of Scandinavia, I have only one comment: Danish Kings and Swedish nobles = Oil and water. This would probably apply in all the combinations.

Click to expand...

Read a book on that topic and I must agree. The Kalmar union had only very slim chances if not almost none.

I don't know, is Sweden really "to rich initially"? Bear in mind, in 1419 Lappland is a colony. Västerbotten, Österbotten, Savolaks and Tavastland are tiny, they have about 1000 inhabitants each and does not produce much value..

I'm not sure, but I'd guess that Denmarks problems (as mentioned) are the fact that they are too aggressive and gets involved in more wars which they ever could win. And yeah, the badly defended norwegian provinces are an invitation for the swedes too.

Re: Tordenskjold and coreprovinces

Originally posted by Kong Skjold

Core provinces is a no go!
On the subject of adding cores to all of Scandinavia, I have only one comment: Danish Kings and Swedish nobles = Oil and water. This would probably apply in all the combinations.

Click to expand...

Not entirely true. The turmoil in Sweden in the 1400's was due to the fact that some nobles supported the danish king and others didn't.
I think one possibility would be to add danish cores to Småland, Västergötland and Svealand that could be removed when Christian II dies or something like that.

Napoleon I feel is far too overrated in Eu2 as a field commander. Keep his really high monarch military skill for sure. However he really didn't have all that much impact on the field, aside from a morale boost. He'd simply sit on a hill the night before, write up some plans that would be innacurate and never be executed properly within 5 minutes the battle started and that was it. Leaders such as Murat on the other hand... I just have a hard time finding a lot to praise in a man as foolhardy enough 1) Not to persure a retreating and significantly smaller Russian army 2) Not to stay in Moscow where (had the looting been somewhat controlled) more than enough rations for something like 3 months and 3) Not only leaving the haven of Moscow, but choosing the already twice pillaged Smolensk road for his army to leave upon. Of all this options he chose the absolute worst and turned what had been a somewhat victorious campaign prior into a string of defeats that would haunt him all the way to St. Helena. Looking at the Russian camapaign, he himself looks like a blundering idiot. However this obviously isn't completely accurate, he certainly wasn't an idiot, so I say give him moderate values, its a shame he just can't lose them when he comes up against an enemy that is actually determined to fight as happened historically. He saw the Russians were actually going to fight him, his invincibility was shattered forever at Borodino, his army saw it, he saw it, and he was never again great. Either way, give the credit to his campaigns to men like Murat who deserve it.

Also, back on topic I support just about anything reasonable that will better portray Denmark vs. Sweden. Every war fought between the two that I know of during the 16th c. ended in Swedish defeat. However none of these defeats were decisive, but this can be blamed on the almost complete inability to hold land during the harsher seasons. The only way Sweden decisively defeated Denmark was not by attacking the natural fortress of Norway as happens in Eu2, but by moving into the more temperate climes of Denmark proper. While Sweden could hold land on the Jutland peninsula later on, Denmark could not hold Swedish land in the same way, which was the sole thing really preventing Denmark from ripping Sweden to pieces in the earlier decades.

Originally posted by N Katsyev
Every war fought between the two that I know of during the 16th c. ended in Swedish defeat.

Click to expand...

What about the "The Liberation War".
from 1522 when Gustav Vasa of Sweden removed the Danish King Christian II from the Swedish throne and drove the Danes out of Sweden.


A few battles during the war won by Sweden:
- The conquest of Kalmar on May 27, 1523
- The conquest of Stockholm on June16 - 17, 1523

Isn't the Swedish Admiral Klas Horn at 4-5-5 very overrated btw? What did he accomplish to deserve those stats?