• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.

EU4 - Development Diary - 25th of October 2016

Hello everyone and welcome to another Europa Universalis IV development diary. This time we’ll go into the main flavor of the 1.19 patch, which we call Denmark.

Well, why do we call it Denmark? Well.. First of all, we’ve added lots and lots of Dynamic Historical Event to Denmark, bringing them up to par with other european majors. Skåne also starts with the Skånemarket, a large bonus to the fish produced in the province. We have also added a few new provinces in Jylland, while also increasing the development of Denmark as a whole.
eu4_52.png

And as you can see here, the Danes get a nice new unit in 1.19 as well..

eu4_51.png

Norway also got an improvement, getting their map revised to include a fair amount of new provinces, and a wasteland in the center of the mountain range, to make the country more easily defended against the vile swedes. We also gave them a huge chunk of new Dynamic Historical Events, making playing them a fair bit more interesting.
CvhMke2WEAA4Oxh.jpg large.jpg

We also improved the political mapmode, as so many had requested, so we now show the terrain map where there has been no colonisation yet, so you’ll have some more informative eye-candy while playing
eu4_54.png

One other thing to mention today is the fact that we added a fair bit more instructions to the AI for your nation if you crash or are forced to stop playing for a while in a campaign. The following options now exists for your convenience.

  • Ignore Decisions -Yes/No
  • Embrace Institutions - Yes/No
  • Develop Provinces - Yes/No
  • Disband Units - Yes/No
  • Change Fleet Missions - Yes/No
  • Send Missionaries - Yes/No
  • Convert Culture - Yes/No
  • Add/Remove Cultures - Yes/No
Stay tuned.. Next week we’ll talk more about forts, peace options and tradegoods, amongst other things.
 
  • 165
  • 36
  • 6
Reactions:
I think 4-5 provinces for each Scandinavian country would be a bit too much, as the population of the region was quite low compared to something like France or Austria, and although I think that Denmark should be much stronger in order to be somewhat realistic, I think that we should be cautious not to make Scandinavia too powerful a region. I think Denmark could use three-four new provinces, Norway perhaps one or two, and I honestly think that Sweden is okay as of now. Perhaps they could use one or two more as well.
Firstly after development was introduced province number isn't as tied to population count as previously.. But it is a good point to compare with majors like France. I don't think Scandinavia would be too powerful with 4-5 provinces each to DK and SE and around 3 to NO. Part of the reason I'd give the same amount to Sweden is that otherwise I don't really see DK getting it. And while DK was more populous than SE, SE has large lands and loads of strategic depth.
I don't think adding that amount of provinces would make Scandinavia to strong, but it's at the high end sure.

Currently the Sound Toll is just a static +20 trade power in the Lübeck trade node
I'm aware; and I agree that it's hopelessly bad.

perhaps giving you a percentage of all money that the node produces, and the odd event or two where a passing merchant lies about the worth of his cargo, and the king buys it off him for a small price and thus earns a lot of money.
That's something I'd really like to see. And it would be historical. Also it should probably be a percentage of both the value exiting the node and the retained value. Because the exiting trade would go through Øresund too. Though perhaps it should be a percentage of the value incoming from the North Sea and the value leaving for Antwerp. That would be the most realistic, since it would take a cut from the value going through the Sound.

Make it the last province that they make it to, and perhaps give it an modifier, or some events related to the fortifications or the construction of the citadel.

As for the partisan thing, I admit I might've been a bit unclear - if the Swedes, or any enemy for that matter, don't have Copenhagen, the ZoC will simply revert back all provinces to Danish control. Thus, they will be forced to dispatch a few regiments to keep them occupied, weakening the force that they can use to lay siege with.
For KBH to be the last province you'll need Hillerød to reach Køge Bay so that you must go through it, and siege down Kronborg, to reach KBH. Though I actually like that setup. You'd also need to make the Skåne crossing different---i.e. reach Hillerød and not KBH.
That'd be quite realistic too.

Would you like for the Danes to get 800k starting gold and level 32 tech as well @Admiral Fisker? Because all of your thoughts seem aimed at giving Denmark bonuses and perks that no other nation has...
Making Copenhagen really hard to bust might be a bit over the top, albeit historical, due to other cities probably being really hard to bust too. But making the Sound Toll really beefy is not giving DK bonuses nobody else has---or rather it's not giving unreasonable boni. Otherwise you can ask why say France has to start as strong as it does. The Sound Toll was really really important and profitable. There are castles, buildings, and even cities spread all over Denmark and former Danish domains which were entirely funded by the Sound Toll. It made the kings insanely rich. So to simulate that you need to actually give a valuable bonus for holding Kronborg and not just a pretty much meaningless +20 trade power, which as times goes by becomes more and more insignificant instead of becoming more meaningful as happened historically.

as it was the source of around 50% of the country's income.
More like 66%.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Denmark indeed could need a few more provinces---and so could Sweden. Possibly Norway too, but not too knowledgeable on that.
But this change is really great.

I said in another thread earlier today that were I in charge of making Scandinavia..........


I Really do agree that the love for Denmark has been needed, only regret i just did an ironman with them in 1,17 :(
anyway Playing Denmark i never really felt like new provinces was needed, but adding Ditmarchen and Kolding(Koldinghus) is really AWESOME.
However It does not make sense to split up Sjælland into 2 or more provinces.
Historically there where only 3 "major land owners" on sjælland. The Crown, The Bishop in Roskilde and A noble house based in Sorø village in south/western central Sjælland.
Kongevejen or the kings road, made it possible for going from Copenhagen to the great belt, relatively easy and without any natural features hindring it. making an east west split, obsolete. Splitting northern zealand with the rest would just not make sense as it a far to little area, owned by the crown hence being closely related to Copenhagen.
everything east and north from Roskilde fjord/ Køge bright was/is to connected to Copenhagen to separate it.
A City state of copenhagen would be an idea, but again then you could have a Constantinople, amsterdam, Vatican, London, Paris, ST petersburg etc. more valid city states as Copenhagen was relatively insignificant populationwise.

Vordingborg at the very southern Zealand could be possible new province together with Møn and Falster, but again what would it really improve????

If the Soundtoll is reworked correctly to actually bring in some ducats, + development boost and the two new provinces in the "greater denmark" area I am more than happy for the changes.
 
OK, buckle up guys..... Long post with a lot of feedback ahead!!!!

Basically, here's some detailed feedback for paradox regarding the new "revamp..." of the political mapmode.
This post was taken from my replies to the teaser image on reddit.

AND REMEMBER! THIS IS ONLY ---MY--- OPINION.
And, TL;DR before we start:

  • The current state of the map is unfinished, unpolished, and way below the quality I expected from a studio who's main line of games ARE LITERALLY JUST MAPS With other things attatched, of course... :p
  • The colors of the political map work very well. Everything was designed around a common style, texture, pattern, and shape. The colors all work together.
  • The colors and objects on the Terrain map mode are beautiful, but they do NOT IN ANY WAY WORK WITH THE POLITICAL MAP.
  • Looking between the styles is jarring. This is a BASIC design principle: UNIFORMITY.
  • Finally, utility: You literally have no way to visually tell the difference between colonizable territory and wasteland. Why would you make the game less user friendly?


This looks god awful, and judging by the screenshot, this is a full replacement for the political mapmode. So, unless you want to get mods (Which, by the way, I use plenty of), the base game is going to be stuck like this. Frankly, it doesn't affect me as much, seeing as I use countless graphics mods, but still.

I'm no art major, or even a professional in any sense of the word, but I for years I have worked on drawing / editing historical maps in Photoshop + Illustrator, so I would say I have at least a bit of experience with this... Honestly, I've been obsessed with drawing maps since I was literally 4 years old. Needless to say, my quality has improved to a remarkable extent in the 13 years that have passed.

I get what they're going for here, but in it's current state, it looks unpolished. I think a major contributor to that comes down to color and consistency. Although EU4's nation colors weren't designed with aesthetics in mind (the colors used are derived from either flags, uniforms, or other such historical factors), they all tend to work pretty well together.

My next complaint comes down to the "consistency" of the design, colors, and patterns. In the old political map, gray was the default background for uncolonized or otherwise empty provinces. Say what you will about the dull, drab color of gray, but you must admit that it helped give a solid background. By introducing a huge amount of clutter, not only do the colors of the nations become harder to distinguish, but the borders of the nations become very jarring.

My final complaint is more of an overall statement on the quality (or lack thereof) of the work that was put into this. From what I can tell, all they did was simply add an alpha channel (or, in laymen's terms, remove the color and add replace it with transparency) to the uncolonized / wasteland provinces. Sure, it's a quick method, but does it really produce the quality I expect from a paradox game? Short answer: No. To me, this map looks like they simply just took some scissors, and just cut off the uncolonized areas of the map, and just slapped it on top of a image of the terrain mapmode. Look at the countries pictured here: They all have the same opaque background as they used to. That worked when they were surrounded by gray, because it made the color scheme consistent in terms of patterns and color. Now, what you essentially have is a jarring transition from one style to another. It doesn't work.

Again, it just looks like a low effort change without any positive outcome. The countries look like pieces of flat colored paper glued onto a completely different style of map.

For a game developed and played by lovers of history and maps, I would have hoped that people would look back to this one simple, fundamental question:

What is the purpose of a map?

Maps aren't art for the sake of art. Sure, you can make a nice looking map, but in the end, why was that map made? To provide clear information about the location of something. This isn't about whether or not the map Looks nice, because again, Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. What it Is about is whether or not this map provides clear and functional information to the viewer. The jarring borders and colors, to me, seem to undermine the entire purpose of what the EU4 map is supposed to be. This is a strategy game. When looking around the map, can you easily see the province borders in the uncolonized lands? NO. Can you even easily see where wasteland is? NO.


Thanks for reading. I hope this is useful feedback for the devs..... I hope it isn't too late to just simply add a toggle...

 
  • 11
Reactions:
OK, buckle up guys..... Long post with a lot of feedback ahead!!!!

Basically, here's some detailed feedback for paradox regarding the new "revamp..." of the political mapmode.
This post was taken from my replies to the teaser image on reddit.

AND REMEMBER! THIS IS ONLY ---MY--- OPINION.
And, TL;DR before we start:

  • The current state of the map is unfinished, unpolished, and way below the quality I expected from a studio who's main line of games ARE LITERALLY JUST MAPS With other things attatched, of course... :p
  • The colors of the political map work very well. Everything was designed around a common style, texture, pattern, and shape. The colors all work together.
  • The colors and objects on the Terrain map mode are beautiful, but they do NOT IN ANY WAY WORK WITH THE POLITICAL MAP.
  • Looking between the styles is jarring. This is a BASIC design principle: UNIFORMITY.
  • Finally, utility: You literally have no way to visually tell the difference between colonizable territory and wasteland. Why would you make the game less user friendly?


This looks god awful, and judging by the screenshot, this is a full replacement for the political mapmode. So, unless you want to get mods (Which, by the way, I use plenty of), the base game is going to be stuck like this. Frankly, it doesn't affect me as much, seeing as I use countless graphics mods, but still.

I'm no art major, or even a professional in any sense of the word, but I for years I have worked on drawing / editing historical maps in Photoshop + Illustrator, so I would say I have at least a bit of experience with this... Honestly, I've been obsessed with drawing maps since I was literally 4 years old. Needless to say, my quality has improved to a remarkable extent in the 13 years that have passed.

I get what they're going for here, but in it's current state, it looks unpolished. I think a major contributor to that comes down to color and consistency. Although EU4's nation colors weren't designed with aesthetics in mind (the colors used are derived from either flags, uniforms, or other such historical factors), they all tend to work pretty well together.

My next complaint comes down to the "consistency" of the design, colors, and patterns. In the old political map, gray was the default background for uncolonized or otherwise empty provinces. Say what you will about the dull, drab color of gray, but you must admit that it helped give a solid background. By introducing a huge amount of clutter, not only do the colors of the nations become harder to distinguish, but the borders of the nations become very jarring.

My final complaint is more of an overall statement on the quality (or lack thereof) of the work that was put into this. From what I can tell, all they did was simply add an alpha channel (or, in laymen's terms, remove the color and add replace it with transparency) to the uncolonized / wasteland provinces. Sure, it's a quick method, but does it really produce the quality I expect from a paradox game? Short answer: No. To me, this map looks like they simply just took some scissors, and just cut off the uncolonized areas of the map, and just slapped it on top of a image of the terrain mapmode. Look at the countries pictured here: They all have the same opaque background as they used to. That worked when they were surrounded by gray, because it made the color scheme consistent in terms of patterns and color. Now, what you essentially have is a jarring transition from one style to another. It doesn't work.

Again, it just looks like a low effort change without any positive outcome. The countries look like pieces of flat colored paper glued onto a completely different style of map.

For a game developed and played by lovers of history and maps, I would have hoped that people would look back to this one simple, fundamental question:

What is the purpose of a map?

Maps aren't art for the sake of art. Sure, you can make a nice looking map, but in the end, why was that map made? To provide clear information about the location of something. This isn't about whether or not the map Looks nice, because again, Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. What it Is about is whether or not this map provides clear and functional information to the viewer. The jarring borders and colors, to me, seem to undermine the entire purpose of what the EU4 map is supposed to be. This is a strategy game. When looking around the map, can you easily see the province borders in the uncolonized lands? NO. Can you even easily see where wasteland is? NO.


Thanks for reading. I hope this is useful feedback for the devs..... I hope it isn't too late to just simply add a toggle...
A bit more direct, but my thoughts exactly. The art style doesn't mesh well and the map loses some of its utility. I understand some people like it, but if this map mode stays, there needs to either be a toggle or another map mode that functions the same as the current map mode. I really don't like this change, and I hope there is some way around it.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
@Trin Tragula i do love these changes about time we see more provinces in denmark. However i have to ask do you have any intention of changing their NI set any time soon? as it really does feel like one of the weakest in the game.

i understand some of the ideas are inspired by history but i also do know there are countries who has ideas that Arent historically correct to the time line. such as Norway. Their set is inspired by their viking age time, which is understandable of course since Norway couldn't do much for themselves during this period as it was mostly controlled.

Denmark has nothing that really boost trade in their NI (even though they were huge on trade) and they also did colonize during this period. it wouldn't hurt either to give them a 5% discipline idea? because the only military idea in there is 10% manpower recovery which is in all honestly borderline terrible. Since you can get the same amount from protestant ideas alone. it's not that i want denmark to get an OP idea set but i would like to see a set that at least looks like it's actually able to put up a challenge in the later game without actually getting rolled over (speaking MP here) while i do love their final 2 ideas it makes it really easy to control rebels. that and the 50% naval increase and the 10% tax increase is really all i seem to like which is 4 ideas that feel is useful (light ship combat ability is pretty useless since they just get evaporated by heavy's)

None the less a buff is a buff which is nice.

But personally a few changes to their NI is really what i would prefer to see the most. more provinces was second on my list so hey i got something i wanted! So i am of course very happy none the less :) keep up the good work loving this game. if there are grammar mistakes probably a ton... then i'll just blame the fact i wrote this during 2:49 AM
 
That being said, I am curious as to why there is an abundance of Balkan nationalism in these forums. I see it a lot more often than any other patriotism. Is there a particular reason why?
Under representation may be a factor. I know that a lot of Scandinavians watch videos about themselves on YT. I guess we are used to not seeing our countries being developed much in games at the same time so we don't get our hopes and demands up. The Balkans may not have reached that stage. I'm just speculating.
 
Okay why are the devs answering minor questions but ignoring the big important one half the thread is asking about toggling the uncolonized province thing. That seems a bit suspicious, why are they completely ghosting that one?
 
  • 2
Reactions:
  • 1
Reactions:
I think slesvig is a tad too big. In a lot of "more province mods" that i see they tend to split it like so:
gc95xyp.png
You are aware what can of worms you are opening here? Because that split in your screenshot is utterly anachronistic, really bad, and completely unrealistic. It's obviously based on the current border which firstly to a very large degree is a result of events happening after the game's time frame---and in any case something completely unfitting for by far most of the game's time frame. Plus it could well have been different in 1920 when it was divided. And it e.g. puts Flensborg in the southern half which is bad, since it was one of the largest bastions of Danishness once the southern half started to stop being Danish language in the 1800s (culture wise it's pretty much still the old Southern Jutlandic, and hence Danish, culture to this day).

There is a very good reason that I did not propose any province additions to Denmark which involved splitting Slesvig, when I made my suggestions thread about adding more provinces. And that reason is that Slesvig is a border gore par excellance. You will not be able to make any reasonable provinces which aren't completely artificial and horrible.

Now you could decide to split it in three and follow this map, since that's actual divisions. And they would be good for CKII (should you want to divide Slesvig there), because it's medieval divisions, but they are horrible for the game's time frame and just gets worse and worse as time progresses. So you can't really use them. Also note the peninsula called Svans on the bottom right of the map; I'll get back to it later, so use this chance to note where it's positioned.
S%C3%B8nderjylland_i_middelalderen.png



Now lets use the administrative divisions which existed in the EU4 time frame you might say. Well here you have the shires of Slesvig with the counties seen by the numbering. E.g. all the shires starting with 1 belonged to Haderslev county. You can't just divide by counties though, but will need to rather use shire boundaries. And even then you probably need to cut some of them. See how we already are getting into border gore trouble?
Slesvig-counties.png


Here's how I'd divive Slesvig in two if the shires are used as a base. Though it's rough and more shires should probably be divided to better follow the local boundaries between where people interacted with each other. And to be frank 3a, the entirety of 3c and 3d, plus the eastern half of 7e probably should be made part of the eastern, main half. The reason for the split is taken to mainly split at the marshes with the Frisian populations and then starting to move west when you get to the old language border which existed between ~1100 and ~1850. Svans used to be fully Danish too, but already changed to German language in the 1400s, which is why I didn't incorporate it in the main part.

Is this really something you want? Because I don't. And this was even quite coarse and not that realistic, but probably the best way to split it in two.
Slesvig-counties.png




Now we get to the historically correct split. But that is border gore par excellance, and even that isn't the full truth, since the map is general and not in full detail. In the 1500s Slesvig and Holstein were split between the king's three sons. The oldest and hence the future king got a part, and the two others get a part each. One branch died out in the late 1500s and the two other branches (royal and ducal) administered those lands in unison. Now the ducal branch had a fallout with the king in the 1600s and sided with the Swedes which led the Swedes to demand the ducal lands independent in 1658. They remained independent until 1773 due to first being closely related to Sweden and then Russia. In the end the ducal lands were traded with Russia for Oldenburg. The ducal lands were called Slesvig-Holstein-Gottorp.

Anyway we are entering utter mess here. The below map is from 1650 and hence from back when the ducal lands still were a vassal of the king. Yellow is ducal lands, orange is royal lands, and fainth orange the jointly administered lands. The other colours are other vassals, except puke green being Hamburg/Lübeck. Green (bishopric Lübeck) might not have been a vassal either; don't know. As you can see we are in for a ride to border gore land.

Map_SLH-1650.png



Now when the ducal lands went independent in 1658 the commonly administered lands were divided between them (or at least that's how they always are shown on maps). Also since the ducal lands had significant holdings in Holstein too, and those were the ones lasting to 1773, Holstein would have to be split too. The ducal lands in Slesvig were retaken by Denmark when the Great Northern War ended in 1721.

So the way I'd split Slesvig and Holstein, were I forced to make a split (as mentioned I prefer them not split due to the gore), would be the below mess. That'd be historically correct and the only proper way to split it. And having the provinces discontinuous is historical and needed for correctness. Though you could have Slesvig split in 4 and Holstein in 3 to avoid the discontinuousness, but that way be way too many provinces for Slesvig and Holstein so that most certainly shouldn't happen.
Now the green area is the royal part of Slesvig; the red is the royal part of Holstein. Those two provinces would be owned by the Slesvig tag in 1444. Pink is the ducal lands in Slesvig and yellow the ducal lands in Holstein. Those would be owned by a new tag, the Slesvig-Holstein-Gottorp tag, which technically should be a vassal of the current Slesvig tag, but mechanics and game play wise probably should be made a Danish tag instead. For the game files it'd be independent from 1658 to 1773, disappearing after 1773, and the pink province would be taken by Denmark in 1721.
EU4_Danmark.png











Do you now see why Slesvig is best left undivided and alone? Because you can't start looking at dividing it without running into all this border gore and hard to click provinces. Now I'm one of the people who can live with (and in fact don't have a problem with) border gore and hard to click provinces and you might be too, but those discontinuous provinces would have loads of contact points and there is something about that being bad coding wise leading to slowdown. And I most certainly don't want Slesvig divided at the cost of a small slowdown.

Now having Slesvig-Holstein-Gottorp in game would be awesome, and like Ditmarsken it was something giving us headaches for a long time, but it just isn't really feasible province border wise and would lead to utter border gore and discontinuous provinces---or 4 provinces in Slesvig and 3 in Holstein. Both being bad options.



Hence Slesvig should remain undivided; that can of worms should be left unopened. If you want to add more provinces to Denmark, and I can't see arguing for splitting Slesvig if not to add provinces to Denmark, then there are still plenty of places where a new province would make good sense. And where you don't have the utter mess that Slesvig is.
 

Attachments

  • Slesvig-counties.png
    Slesvig-counties.png
    300,7 KB · Views: 29
  • EU4_Danmark.png
    EU4_Danmark.png
    3,2 MB · Views: 28
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
I think slesvig is a tad too big. In a lot of "more province mods" that i see they tend to split it like so:

Personally if I had to split Slesvig I would've gone for an east/west split, the strongest argument for that in my opinion is that I hate how you can land on one side of the peninsula and control both coasts from there. However I don't really see the need to do it at all, there aren't any clear natural splits to be made (an east/west split *might* be based on North Frisia but....) and I don't want to replicate the 19th century divide just because it exists today.
The current province really is not that big, compare if you will to Halland over in Skåneland :)
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Personally if I had to split Slesvig I would've gone for an east/west split, the strongest argument for that in my opinion is that I hate how you can land on one side of the peninsula and control both coasts from there. However I don't really see the need to do it at all, there aren't any clear natural splits to be made (an east/west split *might* be based on North Frisia but....) and I don't want to replicate the 19th century divide just because it exists today.
The current province really is not that big, compare if you will to Halland over in Skåneland :)
What's wrong with a province touching two coasts? THat happens plenty of places and mainly means that you can enter a ship from both sides, since there isn't really coast defences in game.
And due to the marshes and bogs in the eastern, southern half you actually only really can marsh an army north/south in the eastern half.
And opposite Northern Jutland (everything north of Slesvig), where an east west split is natural and historical, Southern Jutland (Slesvig) didn't really ever have that, since trade always, or at least since viking times, moved east west across the peninsula. And administration wise it also weren't east west splits. And especially in the north half it becomes really problematic to split east west, since then you get Ribe in the east half. Now Ribe and the rest of the kingly enclaves (not the same as the royal parts of the ducky; the kingly enclaves actually were part of Denmark) theoretically should be part of the Vestjylland province, but that would be utterly horrible game play/performance wise and not really give any gain at all.

As mentioned the only way it really makes sense to split Slesvig is to include Slesvig-Holstein-Gottorp, and I assume that you agree with me that while it would be historical and fun to have, it would also be utterly mental to include such a province mess in the game.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
"Denmark did start up successful colonieson all continents"

Well. . . None in South America or Australia. Oh and their attempt to colonize Africa was a failure. Still quite a power in the north in 1444 though.

How will the changes affect the Kiel canal?
 
Frankly I wouldn't like such events, since even today and especially back then you could well argue that it was a single culture with a single language. Danish, Swedish, and Bokmål aren't that different from each other and could well be said to be dialects of each other. And culture wise there isn't really much difference---especially not back then. Now I think the current division is fine, but I wouldn't want elaborate systems to change provinces from one group to another given that there isn't really much of a change and it primarily is one of loyalty---i.e. which state/king has your loyalty.
If you want to change those cultures there always is the culture change system.

Danish literature forbidden uptill 1800s, families forbidden to contact relatives in Denmark, there was a "försvenskning" of Skånska as per the linguist Fredrik Lindström (watch from 5:30 if you understand Swedish).


I get your point that Danish, Swedish, Bokmål are language continuum and the differences arent that vast (even the above video states how östdanska (modern Bornholmska) is something between Danish and Swedish , but such events overall make EU4 more interesting. It adds a bit character to the game when one conquers a new region. :)
 
  • 3
Reactions:
Dear Devs,

Since patch 1.19 is going to bring us several interesting map changes, I am wondering if you would consider adding 1 province in Poland/Lithuania?

The province Brest (Lithuania) could be divided and southern part could be called "Chelm" (or Cholm in ukrainian/russian). In 1444 belongs to Poland.

Just a proposition, the final shape can of course be different.

vovhxuX.png


I am sure that adding this province in one way or another would bring us closer to what polish-lithuanian border looked like back in the 15th century.

Historical reference (Chelm province marked in red):

1wk9Yqr.jpg



More detailed map:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d0/Polska_1333_-_1370.png


Have a nice day!
 
  • 7
  • 1
Reactions:
Oh and their attempt to colonize Africa was a failure.
You call it a failure when they lasted until the mid 1800s, where they were sold to Britain. And they facilitated the really large slave trade we had to the Caribbean which ended up making us something like the 8th biggest slave trader. How's that a failure?
Danish literature forbidden uptill 1800s, families forbidden to contact relatives in Denmark, there was a "försvenskning" of Skånska as per the linguist Fredrik Lindström (watch from 5:30 if you understand Swedish).


I get your point that Danish, Swedish, Bokmål are language continuum and the differences arent that vast (even the above video states how östdanska (modern Bornholmska) is something between Danish and Swedish , but such events overall make EU4 more interesting. It adds a bit character to the game when one conquers a new region. :)
I'm aware that you Swedes actively repressed the people in Skåneland. But that doesn't change my point that it essentially all is dialects---especially the longer back you go. Take a look at the differences. Aside from different loan words the only main difference is pronunciation wise. So what happened in Skåne essentially is one dialects trying to make another one more similar to itself. That happened in many places all over the World.
I just don't see it's warranted to be in, since it's really low scale and seen from outside Scandinavia there isn't really much of a change at all.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
8 trading posts and forts. No real settlements. Three lost within the first decade of "settlement". Of the rest four were held nominally for about 70 years, and one for almost 200. None were ever major population centers or profitable. They did better than the Scottish for what it's worth but honestly you are just trying to debate semantics of what qualifies as successful or not.
 
  • 1
Reactions: