VIP - Scandinavia

[Arilou]

So existing minority parties in the game is a valid argument for a hypothetical Scandinavian state? In the 1860s Swedish hadn't become a spoken language, the Norwegian language fight had not occurred etc. The only reason the culture is divided is because of the three states, with them gone the setup is rather nonsensical

Actually it makes sense for a whole bunch of reasons (possibly reemergence of the former member-states due to instabiliy, for instance)

While you can argue that in 1419 there was no swedish, danish or norwegian culture, you'd be hard-pressed to argue it in 1836.

As I see it there is absolutely no reason to merge the scandinavian cultures.

A) Keeping the four cultures separate means that unless you go the Scandinaavist route you are going to be facing trouble if you say, conquer Norway as Sweden. (Which seems accurate, considering the trouble that was given)

B) If Scandinavia is created there should still be the possibility of this new union breaking up into it's constituent kingdoms. A separatist Denmark, Finland or Norway shouldn't have cultures over all of Scandinavia.

C) It wastes a tag.

Really, there is absolutely no reason to combine the cultures. It's extra work for absolutely no gain.

 

[Sleepyhead]

Actually it makes sense for a whole bunch of reasons (possibly reemergence of the former member-states due to instabiliy, for instance)

While you can argue that in 1419 there was no swedish, danish or norwegian culture, you'd be hard-pressed to argue it in 1836.

Not at all, the Scandinavian movement was started in order to unite the three states into one nation, this was based on common cultural heritage etc. And my province, which ingame is Swedish was not at all culturally closer to Malmö than say Trondheim.

As I see it there is absolutely no reason to merge the scandinavian cultures.

A) Keeping the four cultures separate means that unless you go the Scandinaavist route you are going to be facing trouble if you say, conquer Norway as Sweden. (Which seems accurate, considering the trouble that was given)

I meant it as a result of Scandinavia being formed, not from the start.

B) If Scandinavia is created there should still be the possibility of this new union breaking up into it's constituent kingdoms. A separatist Denmark, Finland or Norway shouldn't have cultures over all of Scandinavia.

Still, a separatist Italian och German kingdom have cultures over half of Germany and Italy.

C) It wastes a tag.

Really, there is absolutely no reason to combine the cultures. It's extra work for absolutely no gain.

It does seem like you failed to read the last segment of my previous post:

Well if one decides to go after Finland, Estonia and Latvia the national cultures won't fit on the screen.​

If Scandinavia was formed 'Swedish', 'Danish' and 'Norwegian' would serve no purpose. The cultures are only based on the States' borders, nothing else. A Scandinavian state would of course seek to create a common heritage, just like the states historically sought to create a nation within the state.

 

[Arilou]

Not at all, the Scandinavian movement was started in order to unite the three states into one nation, this was based on common cultural heritage etc. And my province, which ingame is Swedish was not at all culturally closer to Malmö than say Trondheim.

Quote:

Whcih is why half of the population in jämtland is norwegian in VIP

I meant it as a result of Scandinavia being formed, not from the start.

I know, but that simply makes it a nuisance. Functionally it makes nodifference if you have four state-cultures or one comprising all the four. It just means you have to do a lot of useless event-coding.

Still, a separatist Italian och German kingdom have cultures over half of Germany and Italy.

No they don't. Germany has North German AND South german culture. Most of the minors has one or the other. Same with Italy.

If Scandinavia was formed 'Swedish', 'Danish' and 'Norwegian' would serve no purpose. The cultures are only based on the States' borders, nothing else. A Scandinavian state would of course seek to create a common heritage, just like the states historically sought to create a nation within the state.

And its success would probably be, let us say, mixed. (Just like Italy's)

Another point: Having four separate cultures means that we can code events to target the minorities (let's say for instance we decide to make an event about the official language of the union, i which case we could code militancy increases for the peoples not chosen)

Changing the cultures simply does not bring any advantages worth naming, and several disadvantages. It's pointless.

 

[OHgamer]

Considering Scandinavianism in the 19th C failed as a movement in part because there was no real support among the masses for closer union among the Scandinavian peoples into one state, one has to conclude that at least for several decades more people would have clung to their local identity than any supranational identity. If the differences between Northern and Southern Italians can persist (and have real political impacts) to this day after 140+ years of Italian unification, it is utopian to think that Swedes, Norwegians and Danes would all just happily identify as Scandinavians within a couple years. Especially given the centuries of squabbling between the three.

And functionally, it makes no difference whether you have all three as separate national cultures or were to merge them into one Scandinavian one, so there is no real gameplay reason to make the changes.

Of course, even if VIP does not do it, does not mean individual players can not make it for themselves. Just use one of the new user-defined cultures Revolutions added to create "Scandinavian" and make your own event to convert all Danes, Norwegians and Swedes to that user-made culture, make the national culture that new culture, and you are done. About 5 mins of modding to do.

But it is not something we at VIP would feel comfortable adding, since the suggestion does seem to fly in the face of plausible history of the period. At a time when Norwegian nationalism is rising more strongly each year, the idea that the Norwegian nationalists would be happy in a Scandinavian union just sounds very hollow.

 

[Sleepyhead]

Whcih is why half of the population in jämtland is norwegian in VIP

Which makes no sense as the province wasn't culturally divided.

I know, but that simply makes it a nuisance. Functionally it makes nodifference if you have four state-cultures or one comprising all the four. It just means you have to do a lot of useless event-coding.

For one thing it makes Scandinavia less powerful, four 1k craftsmen pops are more efficient than one 4k craftsman pop.

No they don't. Germany has North German AND South german culture. Most of the minors has one or the other. Same with Italy.

Many of the German minors have both cultures.

And its success would probably be, let us say, mixed. (Just like Italy's)

Still, they aren't 'North Italians' and 'South Italians', they're Venetian, Sicillian, Genovese etc.

Another point: Having four separate cultures means that we can code events to target the minorities (let's say for instance we decide to make an event about the official language of the union, i which case we could code militancy increases for the peoples not chosen)

You have to remember that everyone spoke dialects at this time. There was no Swedish language, except in written form - and few people wrote. The Norwegian language struggle was a struggle because it was hard to find a written form everyone would adhere to, and e.g. nynorsk is an artificial construction - just like Swedish. In a Scandinavian state the created written language would of course be Scandinavian, nothing else. Whether or not it would try to go way back, like the Icelanders did when they "undanified" their language, or if it would be based on written Danish is of course something a player can choose to influence.

Changing the cultures simply does not bring any advantages worth naming, and several disadvantages. It's pointless.

Yet again you fail to read my last segment.

Considering Scandinavianism in the 19th C failed as a movement in part because there was no real support among the masses for closer union among the Scandinavian peoples into one state, one has to conclude that at least for several decades more people would have clung to their local identity than any supranational identity. If the differences between Northern and Southern Italians can persist (and have real political impacts) to this day after 140+ years of Italian unification, it is utopian to think that Swedes, Norwegians and Danes would all just happily identify as Scandinavians within a couple years.

Well if Scandinavia is formed the movement would've been successful. This is alternative history. And nationalism has seldom had real support from 'the masses'. And the local identity has always been strong that is true, but local identity wasn't 'Norwegian', 'Swedish' or 'Danish'. It was Dalecarlian, Jutish, Scanian, Trøndersk etc.

Especially given the centuries of squabbling between the three.

The squabbling never applied to common people. It was the kings who sought to increase their own power.

And functionally, it makes no difference whether you have all three as separate national cultures or were to merge them into one Scandinavian one, so there is no real gameplay reason to make the changes.

First of all, it makes Scandinavia less powerful, second of all it fits with the policy VIP has taken. Russian culture for Russia, Mexican culture for Mexico, Swiss culture for Switzerland, Romanian culture for Romania etc. Third of all, if Scandinavia choose to go for Finland and the Baltics the cultures will fit on the screen instead of expanding way into the map.

But it is not something we at VIP would feel comfortable adding, since the suggestion does seem to fly in the face of plausible history of the period. At a time when Norwegian nationalism is rising more strongly each year, the idea that the Norwegian nationalists would be happy in a Scandinavian union just sounds very hollow.

This still is an alternative history scenario. A Norwegian national identity would never have been created if Norway picked Scandinavist Surge (which would suggest that the movement was strong). The Romantic Nationalism of the time was rural based, Viking Revival applied to all of Scandinavia etc.

This is a scenario where Scandinavia was formed, a movement parallell to the German and Italian.

 

[LordInsane]

Considering Scandinavianism in the 19th C failed as a movement in part because there was no real support among the masses for closer union among the Scandinavian peoples into one state, one has to conclude that at least for several decades more people would have clung to their local identity than any supranational identity.

Not entirely true... there were some real support among the masses for a closer union. In part, the problem is that we look at it with the knowledge that it failed. Support for it weren't, at first, that much weaker, then, say, Romania's, Italy's and Germany's levels, it's just that since those succeed and Scandinavism failed, we conclude that Scandinavism was far more unlikely to succeed. This is not entirely true.
Which doesn't change the fact that people would still be Danes, Norwegians and Swedes in a Scandinavian Union. Just like Bavarians are still Bavarians in Germany. This, of course, is an argument against a Scandinavian culture, namely that we don't have a single German culture.
Though, if Scandinavism succeed, the concept of them clinging to their local identity over a supranational identity would be looked upon as silly, since the national identity would be Scandinavian. Just like Italians, South and North, are Italians.

 

[OHgamer]

actually having a single scandinavian culture will weaken Scandinavia economically more since pops that migrate within will merge rather than remain separate nationalities, and given Scandinavia's small population, you need all the small craft/clerk POPs you can get to maximize output. With a Scandinavian common population, as soon as Danish clerks move to Stockholm, they'll merge and instead of getting 2 small POPs that produce 0.5 each, you get 1 pop that produces at 0.75.

Like I said, this is something you can do for your own game, but not something that will be adopted in VIP, otherwise, we will need to merge North and South German, North and South Italian, Yankee and Dixie post Civil War. And that will open up a HUGE can of worms.

 

[Sleepyhead]

Which doesn't change the fact that people would still be Danes, Norwegians and Swedes in a Scandinavian Union. Just like Bavarians are still Bavarians in Germany.

No they wouldn't. Swedish, Norwegian and Danish aren't 'local' cultures. Local cultures are based on provinces, not the three states.

actually having a single scandinavian culture will weaken Scandinavia economically more since pops that migrate within will merge rather than remain separate nationalities, and given Scandinavia's small population, you need all the small craft/clerk POPs you can get to maximize output. With a Scandinavian common population, as soon as Danish clerks move to Stockholm, they'll merge and instead of getting 2 small POPs that produce 0.5 each, you get 1 pop that produces at 0.75.

Well this depends on whether or not VIP wants Scandinavia to be a powerhouse or not. Having a 6 cultured state (which would be the result if Finnish, Estonian and Latvian were accepted) is a huge advantage.

Like I said, this is something you can do for your own game, but not something that will be adopted in VIP, otherwise, we will need to merge North and South German, North and South Italian, Yankee and Dixie post Civil War. And that will open up a HUGE can of worms.

Is it? North and South Italian/German are not based on states, like Swedish, Norwegian and Danish. Having them separated would be like having Tuscan, Lombard and Sardinian cultures left in an Italian state. These would be the cultures of today had Italy not formed. Since Italy did form they're divided into North and South Italian (simply for gameplay reasons).

And the formation of Scandinavia is in game based on popular support. The American Civil War is not comparable since the southern states sought to secede from a union they voluntarily, well more or less, once joined.

 

[Arilou]

Which makes no sense as the province wasn't culturally divided.

Are you saying there was no difference between city-dwellers (well, if you call Östersund a "city") and others? That would pretty much make Jämltand unique among world-cultures. (Not to mention that from what I've seen of Jämtlanders it's still rather true)

You have to remember that everyone spoke dialects at this time. There was no Swedish language, except in written form - and few people wrote.

Sweden had quite high literacy rate at the time (how many of those actually wrote is a different matter) but that there edxisted such a thing as written swedish by the year 1836 is pretty much undeniable (spoken swedish is a different matter, and indeed whether or not it exists today is someting that linguists debate)

Well if Scandinavia is formed the movement would've been successful. This is alternative history. And nationalism has seldom had real support from 'the masses'. And the local identity has always been strong that is true, but local identity wasn't 'Norwegian', 'Swedish' or 'Danish'. It was Dalecarlian, Jutish, Scanian, Trøndersk etc.

Again that might have been true in 1766 but (at lest for significant parts of Sweden) not so by 1836. Certainly it was not as strongly fixed as it became in the 19th century, but neither was it like it had been in the middle-ages or early-modern era when a common culture was pretty much nonexistent.

Keeping the scandinavian cultures distinct is certainly as useful as keeping US cultures separate.

Also, what the events signify is the success in *creating a political union* creating a homogenous culture would be a much more complicated and long-lasting task.

 

[Sleepyhead]

Are you saying there was no difference between city-dwellers (well, if you call Östersund a "city") and others? That would pretty much make Jämltand unique among world-cultures. (Not to mention that from what I've seen of Jämtlanders it's still rather true)

Östersund was not a real city until the very late 19th century.

Sweden had quite high literacy rate at the time (how many of those actually wrote is a different matter) but that there edxisted such a thing as written swedish by the year 1836 is pretty much undeniable (spoken swedish is a different matter, and indeed whether or not it exists today is someting that linguists debate)

Yes written Swedish existed, but it was first in the 21st century it became a spoken language for real.

Again that might have been true in 1766 but (at lest for significant parts of Sweden) not so by 1836. Certainly it was not as strongly fixed as it became in the 19th century, but neither was it like it had been in the middle-ages or early-modern era when a common culture was pretty much nonexistent.

Keeping the scandinavian cultures distinct is certainly as useful as keeping US cultures separate.

We are talking about opposites here. CSA was secessionist, Scandinavia is a unification of Scandinavia.

Also, what the events signify is the success in *creating a political union* creating a homogenous culture would be a much more complicated and long-lasting task.

If Scandinavia does form it suggests that the movement is strong and just as effective. In reality Scandinavism had a lot of setbacks, but if Scandinavia is formed - it would have succeeded. And neither Danish, Norwegian nor Swedish were at all homogeneous cultures. This is from the event text, if Sweden picks Scandinavist Surge "The Swedish king effectively used the surge of Scandinavism flowing across the North and obtained support from the Swedish parliament to take an active part in the war against Prussia and Austria". And "A Surge of Scandinavism flows through the population of Scandinavia. The Swedish king has taken the leadership in Scandinavia and now propose a Scandinavian Union."

Also, this is from the Norwegian national anthem, from the 19th century:

nu vi står tre brødre sammen,
og skal sådan stå! ​

I don't have to explain the meaning of the Swedish national anthem from 1844. It doesn't even mention Sweden.

 

[clamp2004]

Don't make Swedish, Norwegian and Danish cultures into Scandinavian.... that is just not suitable for this time period at all...

 

[Sleepyhead]

Don't make Swedish, Norwegian and Danish cultures into Scandinavian.... that is just not suitable for this time period at all...

And you're basing this alternative history scenario on..?

 

[Mishgan]

Whilst agreeing that history-wise I do find that there is a biggameplay issue of having too many national cultures in a single country. And in case of Scandinavia, when it "liberates" Estonia and Latvia (at least the current events make it seem as if the balts were dying of impatience to be ruled from Stockholm again), some national cultures just poke out into the mapscreen. Namely the aforementioned Latvians and Estonians.

As such, those who'd want a full-scale conversion of Nordmen into Scandmen, but have no idea how to write events and whatnot, can leech on my custom made events of d00m on the matter. Of course, you still have to manually add the culture into the game, but just follow OH's link earlier in the linked thread. Also, be sure to use the extra_culture_3 tag. Otherwise, you'll have to replace it yourself in the events >.>

Hm. This made me notice I did not include a FIN switch to Extra3 instead of swedish if SCA does not control finnish pixels before FIN is secedes/sattelites/whatever from Russia. Me and my conquest happy AI abusing play style o

Disclaimer: Whilst events have been tested and run properly, run them at your own risk. I am not responsible if your game crashes, your computer eats your cat or Kim Jong Il invades South Korea. You have been warned.

 

[Arilou]

Heck, I'm against giving Sweden latvian or estonian at all. Finnish I could see, but not the other two.

(cores, possibly, but not cultures)

 

[Mishgan]

What is really nice is when you get the endless -mil events for Estonian and Latvian pops. I think I've counted a dozen before I saved my game and just did some big deleting in the relevant events file.

Maybe someone in the modteam should check it out.

 

[Hamza]

Forming Scandinavia Problems

Hi guys --

VIP:R 0.2, playing Denmark, had the showdown over Slesvig and both Norway and Sweden offered vacillating support for me. However, I also had an alliance with Russia so I wasn't too nervous. But Prussia was --- they backed down!

How can I form Scandinavia now?

 

[OHgamer]

Hi guys --

VIP:R 0.2, playing Denmark, had the showdown over Slesvig and both Norway and Sweden offered vacillating support for me. However, I also had an alliance with Russia so I wasn't too nervous. But Prussia was --- they backed down!

How can I form Scandinavia now?

you can't.

the Scandinavian events were reconfigured in VIP:R 0.2 because it was felt forming Scandinavia had become too easy in VIP, so now unless you get surge of support from both other regions of Scandinavia, the flags will not set and you'll not form Scandinavia.

there is a 15% chance for the Surge of Support firing for each of the other 2 AI nations. And you have to have their support in both the 1847 and 1864 crises with Prussia, and win the wars and not lose any territory.

Scandinavia is an ahistorical chain, and it has now been reworked so that it is much more luck of the draw to happen than it had been.

 

[Hamza]

you can't.

the Scandinavian events were reconfigured in VIP:R 0.2 because it was felt forming Scandinavia had become too easy in VIP, so now unless you get surge of support from both other regions of Scandinavia, the flags will not set and you'll not form Scandinavia.

there is a 15% chance for the Surge of Support firing for each of the other 2 AI nations. And you have to have their support in both the 1847 and 1864 crises with Prussia, and win the wars and not lose any territory.

Scandinavia is an ahistorical chain, and it has now been reworked so that it is much more luck of the draw to happen than it had been.

D'oh!

 

[unmerged(91483)]

D'oh!

my advice is to play as sweden and conquer norway.

 

[unmerged(34416)]

you can't.

the Scandinavian events were reconfigured in VIP:R 0.2 because it was felt forming Scandinavia had become too easy in VIP, so now unless you get surge of support from both other regions of Scandinavia, the flags will not set and you'll not form Scandinavia.

there is a 15% chance for the Surge of Support firing for each of the other 2 AI nations. And you have to have their support in both the 1847 and 1864 crises with Prussia, and win the wars and not lose any territory.

Scandinavia is an ahistorical chain, and it has now been reworked so that it is much more luck of the draw to happen than it had been.

One of the best things about VIP is that events nearly always follow history. And even when there's a small deviation the events system can handle it and things don't just suddenly stop.

However part of the reason to play Victoria is to take control of a nation and sometimes it's just to follow the historical path (but maybe do it better!) and sometimes it's to follow the historical path up to the point where your country lost, and ensure that they win.

Playing as Scandinavia is fun, when someone decides to play as Sweden or Denmark (I guess they could play as Norway too for some, well, screen watching).... when they choose one of those two they may be wanting to play as Scandinavia. Leaving it to chance is possibly a bit harsh on players.

A couple of suggestions, since Norway is Sweden's satellite, if Sweden says surge then perhaps so should Norway? Or perhaps it should only count what Sweden says?

Or perhaps if Denmark isn't AI controlled it can cause a Scandinavian surge. And if Sweden isn't AI controlled then perhaps if it says Scandinavian surge then it's a Scandinavian surge.

It's a 10% chance for Sweden or Denmark to surge in either crisis. It doesn't seem to matter if Prussia or Austria, or both back down in each event. The surge comes before Prussia or Austria get the option to go to war. In addition Prussia backing down the first time doesn't stop the second crisis. However Denmark needs to own province 306. Which in some games by the second crisis it does not, as Prussia sometimes takes a peace treaty from Denmark.

So the chances of Scandinavia forming? 10,000, and that's assuming Denmark doesn't lose province 306. That's for a human player playing as Denmark, hoping to become Scandinavia.

As for a human player playing as Sweden. Assuming they decide to pick surge themselves! The chance is 1 in 100. And since they'll be fighting it's up to them to ensure Denmark don't lose.

There's some ahistorical unification events for certain countries in VIP that are clearly there as a bit of a challenge, and for fun. Some of them are a little bit questionable. However, when you choose to play as Argentina and try for the Plata Kingdom, or Greece and try for Byzantium, or Austria and try for the German Empire, etc etc... in every case the odds are overwhelmingly in your favour for random events.... so long as your game is played well enough.

Essentially Scandinavia has been removed from the game for players who aren't aware of how to edit it back in. If they want to save and reload, and save and reload until the events go the right way. Then as Denmark they have a 1 in 100 chance, and they'll have to do that twice. Or as Sweden they'll have a 1 in 10 and have to do it twice.

Even with a 15% chance for each nation - a 1 in 1,975 chance. Up the chance to 50% and it's a 1 in 16 chance. But 50% would be a rather large chance.

Edit : Or perhaps another solution is if Denmark manages to keep all of it's land, and doesn't lose Holstein or Slesvig.